## Makkot Daf 18b

###### Makkot 18b:1
[Makkot 18b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/18b:1)

כֹּל שֶׁבַּקֹּדֶשׁ פָּסוּל – בָּא הַכָּתוּב לִיתֵּן לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה עַל אֲכִילָתוֹ! הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּקוֹדֶם פְּסוּלוֹ חֲזֵי, הָכָא דְּקוֹדֶם פְּסוּלוֹ נָמֵי לָא חֲזֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
it is derived that with regard to **any** item **that is sacrificial** and **disqualified** for whatever reason, **the verse comes to impose a prohibition upon its consumption.** The Gemara explains: **This matter** applies only in a case **where before its disqualification it was fit; here,** it is a case **where before its disqualification it was not fit either,** and therefore the prohibition does not apply.


###### Makkot 18b:2
[Makkot 18b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/18b:2)

וְלִילְקֵי נָמֵי כְּאִידַּךְ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: כׇּל שֶׁהוּא בְּ״כָלִיל תִּהְיֶה״ – לִיתֵּן לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה עַל אֲכִילָתוֹ! אִין הָכִי נָמֵי, וְרָבָא – מֵהַאי קְרָא קָאָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **And let him also be flogged in accordance with the other** statement **of Rabbi Eliezer, as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Eliezer says:** With regard to **any** item **that is** included **in** the mitzva: **“It shall be burned in its entirety”** (Leviticus 6:16), the verse serves **to impose a prohibition upon its consumption,** as it is written: “It shall be burned in its entirety; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:16). The Gemara explains: **Yes, it is indeed so** that according to Rabbi Shimon one is flogged for violating this prohibition as well, **and Rava is saying** that **from this verse** he is interpreting that it is derived that one is flogged with five sets of lashes according to Rabbi Shimon.


###### Makkot 18b:3
[Makkot 18b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/18b:3)

אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב: (סִימָן כּוּזָא) כֹּהֵן שֶׁאָכַל מֵחַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה – לוֹקֶה. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאָכְלוּ אֹתָם אֲשֶׁר כֻּפַּר בָּהֶם״, לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה – אִין, לִפְנֵי כַּפָּרָה – לָא. לָאו הַבָּא מִכְּלַל עֲשֵׂה, – לָאו הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Giddel says** that **Rav says** a statement about a priest [*kohen*] and another statement about a non-priest [*zar*]. Before proceeding, the Gemara provides **a mnemonic** for these statements: ***Kaf*, *vav*, *zayin*, *alef*.** Rav says: **A priest who ate of a sin-offering or a guilt-offering before sprinkling** their blood on the altar **is flogged. What is the reason** that he is flogged? It is **as the verse states** with regard to the inauguration offerings, whose halakhic status was like that of sin-offerings and guilt-offerings in that it was permitted only for priests to partake of their flesh: **“And they shall eat them, that with which they were atoned”** (Exodus 29:33), from which it is inferred: **After atonement, yes,** they may eat the flesh of the offerings; **before atonement, no,** they may not eat it. And in Rav’s opinion, the status of **a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva is** that of **a prohibition,** for which one is flogged.


###### Makkot 18b:4
[Makkot 18b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/18b:4)

מֵתִיב רָבָא: ״וְכׇל בְּהֵמָה מַפְרֶסֶת פַּרְסָה וְשֹׁסַעַת שֶׁסַע שְׁתֵּי פְרָסוֹת מַעֲלַת גֵּרָה בַּבְּהֵמָה אֹתָהּ תֹּאכֵלוּ״, ״אֹתָהּ תֹּאכֵלוּ״ – וְאֵין בְּהֵמָה אַחֶרֶת תֹּאכֵלוּ. וְאִי כִּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ, ״אֶת זֶה לֹא תֹאכְלוּ״ לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raises an objection** based on the verse: **“And every beast that splits the hoof and has the hoof cloven in two, and chews the cud among the animals, that, you may eat”** (Deuteronomy 14:6), from which a prohibition may be inferred: **“That, you may eat,” but** there is **not** any **other animal** that **you may eat.** The Torah prohibits eating the flesh of any animal that lacks the indicators that it is a kosher animal. **And if** it is **as you say,** that an inference from a positive mitzva entails a prohibition, **why do I** need the following verse: **“This you may not eat”** (Deuteronomy 14:7), as it was already inferred from the mitzva? Rather, apparently, the status of a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva is that of a positive mitzva, and one is not liable to receive lashes for its violation.


###### Makkot 18b:5
[Makkot 18b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/18b:5)

אֶלָּא אִי אִיתְּמַר הָכִי אִיתְּמַר, אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב: זָר שֶׁאָכַל מֵחַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה – פָּטוּר, מַאי טַעְמָא – דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאָכְלוּ אֹתָם אֲשֶׁר כֻּפַּר בָּהֶם״, כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּקָרֵינַן בֵּיהּ ״וְאָכְלוּ אוֹתָם אֲשֶׁר כֻּפַּר בָּהֶם״ – קָרֵינַן בֵּיהּ ״וְזָר לֹא יֹאכַל קֹדֶשׁ״, וְכֹל הֵיכָא דְּלָא קָרֵינַן בֵּיהּ ״וְאָכְלוּ אֹתָם אֲשֶׁר כֻּפַּר בָּהֶם״ – לָא קָרֵינַן בֵּיהּ ״וְזָר לֹא יֹאכַל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, if it was stated, this was stated: Rav Giddel says** that **Rav says: A non-priest who ate of a sin-offering or a guilt-offering before** the **sprinkling** of their blood is **exempt** from receiving lashes. **What is the reason** for this? It is **as the verse states: “And they shall eat them, that with which they were atoned…**and a non-priest may not eat, as they are sacred” (Exodus 29:33), and it is expounded as follows: **Anywhere that we read concerning it: “And they shall eat them, that with which they were atoned,” we read concerning it: “And a non-priest may not eat sacrificial food.” But anywhere that we do not read concerning it: “And they shall eat them, that with which they were atoned,”** e.g., in this case, where it is prohibited for priests to partake of the flesh of the offerings before the sprinkling of their blood, **we do not read concerning it: “And a non-priest may not eat.”**


###### Makkot 18b:6
[Makkot 18b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/18b:6)

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה: בִּכּוּרִים, הַנָּחָה מְעַכֶּבֶת בָּהֶן, קְרִיָּיה אֵין מְעַכֶּבֶת בָּהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara resumes the discussion of the *halakha* that was mentioned in the mishna with regard to the Torah verses that one recites when he brings his first fruits to the Temple. **Rabbi Elazar says** that **Rabbi Hoshaya says:** With regard to **first fruits,** the lack of **placement** alongside the altar **invalidates them,** and they may not be eaten by the priest; the lack of **recitation** of the accompanying Torah verses **does not invalidate them.**


###### Makkot 18b:7
[Makkot 18b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/18b:7)

וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הָכִי? וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא: הִפְרִישׁ בִּכּוּרִים קוֹדֶם לֶחָג, וְעָבַר עֲלֵיהֶן הֶחָג – יֵרָקְבוּ. מַאי לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא מָצֵי לְמִיקְרֵי עֲלֵיהֶן? וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ קְרִיָּיה אֵין מְעַכֶּבֶת בָּהֶן, אַמַּאי יֵרָקְבוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And did Rabbi Elazar say that? But doesn’t Rabbi Elazar say** that **Rabbi Hoshaya says:** If one **set aside first fruits before the festival** of *Sukkot* **and the Festival elapsed over them** while they remain in his possession, **they shall** be left to **decay,** as they cannot be rendered fit for consumption. **What, is it not** that they cannot be rendered fit **due to** the fact **that he can no** longer **recite** the Torah verses **over them,** as one may recite the Torah verses only until *Sukkot*? **And if it enters your mind** to say that the lack of **recitation does not invalidate them, why must they** be left to **decay?**


###### Makkot 18b:8
[Makkot 18b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/18b:8)

כִּדְרַבִּי זֵירָא. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: כׇּל הָרָאוּי לְבִילָּה – אֵין בִּילָּה מְעַכֶּבֶת בּוֹ, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְבִילָּה – בִּילָּה מְעַכֶּבֶת בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Elazar holds **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Zeira, as Rabbi Zeira says** a principle with regard to a meal-offering that applies in other areas as well: For **any** measure of flour **that** is **suitable for mixing** with oil in a meal-offering, the lack of **mixing does not invalidate** the meal-offering. Even though there is a mitzva to mix the oil and the flour *ab initio*, the meal-offering is fit for sacrifice even if the oil and the flour are not mixed. **And** for **any** measure of flour **that** is **not suitable for mixing** with oil in a meal-offering, the lack of **mixing invalidates** the meal-offering. Here too, although failure to recite the Torah verses does not invalidate the first fruits for consumption by the priest, that is referring only to when reciting the portion is possible. After *Sukkot*, when it is no longer possible to recite the portion, failure to recite the Torah verses invalidates the first fruits.


###### Makkot 18b:9
[Makkot 18b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/18b:9)

רַבִּי אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב מַתְנֵי לַהּ כִּדְרַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְקַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַדְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בִּכּוּרִים הַנָּחָה מְעַכֶּבֶת בָּהֶן קְרִיָּיה אֵין מְעַכֶּבֶת בָּהֶן? וְהָא בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי אַסִּי מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בִּכּוּרִים מֵאֵימָתַי מוּתָּרִין לְכֹהֲנִים? וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָרְאוּיִן לִקְרִיָּיה – מִשֶּׁקָּרָא עֲלֵיהֶן, וְשֶׁאֵין רְאוּיִן לִקְרִיָּיה – מִשֶּׁרָאוּ פְּנֵי הַבַּיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Aḥa bar Ya’akov teaches** this *halakha* that was cited in the name of Rabbi Elazar **as** the statement **that Rabbi Asi** says that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says, and** as a result, an apparent contradiction between one statement **of Rabbi Yoḥanan and** another statement **of Rabbi Yoḥanan** is **difficult for him.** Rabbi Aḥa bar Ya’akov asks: **And did Rabbi Yoḥanan say** that with regard to **first fruits,** the lack of **placement** alongside the altar **invalidates them** and they may not be eaten; while the lack of **recitation** of the accompanying Torah verses **does not invalidate them? But didn’t Rabbi Asi raise a dilemma before Rabbi Yoḥanan:** With regard to **first fruits, from when is it permitted for priests** to partake of them? **And** Rabbi Yoḥanan **said to** Rabbi Asi: It is permitted for the priest to partake of those first fruits **that are fit for recitation** of the accompanying Torah verses **from when he recites** those verses **over them, and** those first fruits **that are not fit for recitation** of the Torah verses are permitted **once they entered inside the Temple.**


###### Makkot 18b:10
[Makkot 18b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/18b:10)

קַשְׁיָא קְרִיָּיה אַקְּרִיָּיה, קַשְׁיָא הַנָּחָה אַהַנָּחָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan apparently holds that first fruits that are not fit for recitation are not invalidated. In addition, he did not mention placement of the first fruits, indicating that the lack of their placement does not invalidate them for consumption by the priest. The Gemara notes: The apparent contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan with regard to **recitation and** another statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan with regard to **recitation** is **difficult;** and the apparent contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan with regard to **placement and** another statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan with regard to **placement** is **difficult.**


###### Makkot 18b:11
[Makkot 18b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/18b:11)

קְרִיָּיה אַקְּרִיָּה לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, הָא רַבָּנַן. הַנָּחָה אַהַנָּחָה נָמֵי לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְהָא רַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The apparent contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan with regard to **recitation and** another statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan with regard to **recitation** is **not difficult,** as **this** statement, that when recitation is impossible, lack of recitation invalidates the first fruits, is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon** cited in the mishna, **and that** statement, which states that when recitation is impossible, lack of recitation does not invalidate the first fruits, is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis.** The apparent contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan with regard to **placement and** another statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan with regard to **placement** is **not difficult either,** as **this** statement, that lack of placement does not invalidate the first fruits, is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, and that** statement, which states that lack of placement invalidates the first fruits, is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis.**


###### Makkot 18b:12
[Makkot 18b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/18b:12)

מַאי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה? דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: ״וְהִנַּחְתּוֹ״ – זוֹ תְּנוּפָה. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר זוֹ תְּנוּפָה, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא הַנָּחָה מַמָּשׁ? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״וְהִנִּיחוֹ״ – הֲרֵי הַנָּחָה אָמוּר, הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״וְהִנַּחְתּוֹ״ – זוֹ תְּנוּפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** is the statement of **Rabbi Yehuda?** It is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yehuda says** with regard to the verse written in the portion of first fruits: **“And you shall place it** before the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 26:10), that the reference is not to the placement of the fruits alongside the altar; rather, **this** is a reference to **waving** the first fruits. **Do you say** that **this** is a reference to **waving, or** perhaps **it is** a reference **only** to **actual placement** of the first fruits? He explains: **When it states** earlier: “And the priest shall take the basket from your hand **and place it** before the altar of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 26:4), **placement** alongside the altar **is** already **stated; how do I realize** the meaning of the term **“And you shall place it”? This** is a reference to **waving.**


###### Makkot 18b:13
[Makkot 18b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/18b:13)

וּמַאן תַּנָּא דִּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן הַטֶּנֶא מִיָּדֶךָ״ – לִימֵּד עַל הַבִּכּוּרִים שֶׁטְּעוּנִין תְּנוּפָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **And who is the *tanna* who disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda? It is Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, as it is taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the verse written in the portion of first fruits: **“And the priest shall take the basket from your hand”** (Deuteronomy 26:4); this verse **taught about first fruits that they require waving,** this is **the statement of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov.** The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for the opinion **of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov?**


###### Makkot 18b:14
[Makkot 18b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/18b:14)

אָתְיָא ״יָד״ ״יָד״ מִשְּׁלָמִים: כְּתִיב הָכָא ״וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן הַטֶּנֶא מִיָּדֶךָ״, וּכְתִיב ״יָדָיו תְּבִיאֶינָה אֵת אִשֵּׁי ה׳״, מָה כָּאן כֹּהֵן – אַף לְהַלָּן כֹּהֵן, מָה לְהַלָּן בְּעָלִים – אַף כָּאן בְּעָלִים. הָא כֵּיצַד? מַנִּיחַ כֹּהֵן יָדָיו תַּחַת יְדֵי בְּעָלִים וּמֵנִיף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: The matter **is derived** by means of a verbal analogy from one instance of the word **“hand”** written with regard to first fruits and **from** another instance of the word **“hand”** written with regard to **a peace-offering. It is written here,** with regard to first fruits: **“And the priest shall take the basket from your hand”** (Deuteronomy 26:4), **and it is written** with regard to a peace-offering: “He who offers his peace-offering to God…**his hands shall bring it, the fire of God…**to raise it as a waving before God” (Leviticus 7:29–30). **Just as here,** in the case of first fruits, it is the **priest** who takes the basket in his hand and waves it, **so too there,** in the case of the peace-offering, **a priest** performs the waving. **Just as there,** with regard to a peace-offering, it is the **owner** who performs the waving, as it is written: “He who offers…his hands shall bring it,” **so too here,** the **owner** waves the first fruits. **How so;** how can the waving be performed by both the priest and the owner? The **priest places his hands beneath the hands of the owner and waves** the first fruits together with the owner.


###### Makkot 18b:15
[Makkot 18b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/18b:15)

אָמַר רָבָא בַּר אַדָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: בִּכּוּרִים

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rava bar Adda says** that **Rabbi Yitzḥak says:** With regard to **first fruits,**