## Makkot Daf 19a

###### Makkot 19a:1
[Makkot 19a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/19a:1)

מֵאֵימָתַי (מ)חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶם – מִשֶּׁיִּרְאוּ פְּנֵי הַבַּיִת. כְּמַאן – כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא, דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: בִּכּוּרִים מִקְצָתָן בַּחוּץ וּמִקְצָתָן בִּפְנִים, שֶׁבַּחוּץ – הֲרֵי הֵן כְּחוּלִּין לְכׇל דִּבְרֵיהֶם, שֶׁבִּפְנִים – הֲרֵי הֵן כְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ לְכׇל דִּבְרֵיהֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**from when is** a non-priest who eats first fruits **liable** to receive death at the hand of Heaven **for their** consumption? One is liable **from when** the fruits **will enter inside the Temple.** The Gemara notes: **In accordance with whose** opinion is this *halakha* stated? It is **in accordance with** the opinion of **this *tanna*, as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Eliezer says:** With regard to **first fruits, some of which** are **outside and some of which** are **inside** the Temple, the halakhic status of those **that are outside** the Temple is **like** that of **non-sacred** produce **for all matters concerning them,** and the halakhic status of those **that are inside** the Temple is **like** that of **consecrated** produce **for all matters concerning them.**


###### Makkot 19a:2
[Makkot 19a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/19a:2)

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: בִּכּוּרִים, הַנָּחָה – מְעַכֶּבֶת בָּהֶן, קְרִיָּיה – אֵין מְעַכֶּבֶת בָּהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Sheshet says:** With regard to **first fruits,** the lack of **placement** alongside the altar **invalidates them;** while the lack of **recitation** of the accompanying Torah verses **does not invalidate them.**


###### Makkot 19a:3
[Makkot 19a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/19a:3)

כְּמַאן – כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר שְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים מִשּׁוּם שְׁלֹשָׁה זְקֵנִים, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: יָכוֹל יַעֲלֶה אָדָם מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, וְיֹאכְלֶנּוּ? וְדִין הוּא: בְּכוֹר טָעוּן הֲבָאַת מָקוֹם, וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי טָעוּן הֲבָאַת מָקוֹם, מָה בְּכוֹר אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת – אַף מַעֲשֵׂר אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **In accordance with whose** opinion is this *halakha* stated? It is **in accordance with** the opinion of **this *tanna*,** Rabbi Yishmael, **as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yosei says three statements in the name of three elders,** and one of those statements is that which **Rabbi Yishmael says:** One **might** have thought that **a person would bring second-tithe** produce **up to Jerusalem in the present,** after the destruction of the Temple, **and eat it. And** ostensibly, **it** could be derived by means of **a logical inference** that one may not do so: **A firstborn** offering **requires bringing** it **to** the **place,** to Jerusalem, and eating it there, **and** second**-tithe** produce **requires bringing** it **to** the **place; just as** the **firstborn** offering may be eaten there **only in the presence of the Temple, so too,** second**-tithe** produce may be eaten there **only in the presence of the Temple.**


###### Makkot 19a:4
[Makkot 19a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/19a:4)

מָה לִבְכוֹר שֶׁכֵּן טָעוּן מַתַּן דָּמִים וְאֵימוּרִין לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ! בִּכּוּרִים יוֹכִיחוּ. מָה לְבִכּוּרִים, שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנִים הַנָּחָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yishmael continues and counters: **What** is notable **about a firstborn?** Bringing the firstborn to Jerusalem is required only in the presence of the Temple, because it is notable in **that it requires placement of** its **blood and** its **sacrificial portions upon the altar;** will you say the same with regard to second-tithe produce, which requires only that it be consumed in Jerusalem? He then suggests: **First fruits will prove** that placement of blood upon the altar is not a factor, as they do not require placement of blood upon the altar, and yet they are brought to Jerusalem only in the presence of the Temple. Rabbi Yishmael counters: **What** is notable **about first fruits?** They are notable **in that they require placement** alongside the altar. Perhaps, since second-tithe produce does not require placement at all, even in the present one must bring it to Jerusalem and eat it there.


###### Makkot 19a:5
[Makkot 19a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/19a:5)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאָכַלְתָּ [שָּׁם] לִפְנֵי ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ וְגוֹ׳״ – מַקִּישׁ מַעֲשֵׂר לִבְכוֹר, מָה בְּכוֹר אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לִפְנֵי הַבַּיִת – אַף מַעֲשֵׂר אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לִפְנֵי הַבַּיִת. וְאִם אִיתָא, לִיפְרוֹךְ: מָה לְבִכּוּרִים – שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנִין קְרִיָּיה וְהַנָּחָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yishmael concludes: Therefore, **the verse states: “And you shall eat before the Lord your God…**the tithe of your grain…and the firstborn of your herd and your flock” (Deuteronomy 14:23); the Torah **juxtaposes** second-**tithe** produce **to** the **firstborn. Just as** the **firstborn** may be eaten there **only in the presence of the Temple, so too,** second**-tithe** produce may be eaten there **only in the presence of the Temple.** The Gemara explains: the proof of Rav Sheshet’s opinion from the *baraita* is: **And if it is so** that the lack of recitation of the Torah verses invalidates the ritual of first fruits, **let** the *baraita* **refute** the derivation by saying: **What** is notable **about first fruits?** They are notable **in that they require recitation** of the Torah verses **and placement** alongside the altar.


###### Makkot 19a:6
[Makkot 19a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/19a:6)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: נְהִי דְּעִיכּוּבָא לֵיכָּא, מִצְוָה מִי לֵיכָּא? וְלֵימָא מִצְוָה וְלִיפְרוֹךְ! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא בִּכּוּרֵי הַגֵּר, דְּבָעֵי לְמֵימַר אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע [ה׳] לַאֲבֹתֵינוּ״, וְלָא מָצֵי אָמַר – לָא פְּסִיקָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said:** There is no proof from the fact that recitation is not mentioned. **Although** the lack of recitation **does not invalidate** the first fruits, **is there no mitzva?** Everyone agrees that there is a mitzva to recite the Torah verses. **And** therefore **let** the *tanna* **say** that there is **a mitzva** to recite the portion; **and refute** the proof from first fruits in that manner, as in the case of second tithe there is no mitzva to recite Torah verses. **Rather, Rav Ashi said** that there is a different reason that recitation was omitted from the refutation: It is **that there is** the case of **the first fruits of a convert, who needs to recite:** “I have come to the land **that the Lord swore unto our fathers”** (Deuteronomy 26:3), **and** since **he cannot say** it, as the Lord did not swear to give the land to the ancestors of the convert, he brings the first fruits but does not read the portion. Therefore, the obligation to recite the Torah verses **is not clear-cut for** the *tanna* and he did not mention it.


###### Makkot 19a:7
[Makkot 19a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/19a:7)

וְלִיהְדַּר דִּינָא וְתֵיתֵי בַּ״מָּה הַצַּד״! מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁכֵּן יֵשׁ בָּהֶן צַד מִזְבֵּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Why was it necessary for the *tanna* to derive that second-tithe produce is not brought to Jerusalem at present from the juxtaposition in the verse? **And let the derivation revert** to its starting point, **and derive** the *halakha* **through** an analogy derived from **the common factor** of first fruits and the firstborn. Each of the sources neutralizes the significance of the notable factor in the other, leaving the common factor: One must bring them to Jerusalem. From there it may be derived that second-tithe produce, which one must also bring to Jerusalem, need not be brought there when the Temple is not standing. The Gemara answers: The juxtaposition is necessary **due to** the fact **that** this analogy **can be refuted: What** is notable **about the common factor** that is true **of** both first fruits and the firstborn? It is notable **in that they have an aspect** involving the **altar,** which is not so in the case of second tithe.


###### Makkot 19a:8
[Makkot 19a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/19a:8)

וּמַאי קָסָבַר? אִי קָסָבַר קְדוּשָּׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה קִדְּשָׁה לִשְׁעָתָהּ וְקִדְּשָׁה לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא – בְּכוֹר נָמֵי, אִי קָסָבַר קְדוּשָּׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה קִדְּשָׁה לִשְׁעָתָהּ וְלֹא קִדְּשָׁה לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא – אֲפִילּוּ בְּכוֹר נָמֵי תִּבְּעֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what** opinion **does** Rabbi Yishmael **hold** that led to his initial assumption that one is obligated to bring a firstborn animal to Jerusalem only when the Temple is standing? **If** he **maintains** in general that **the initial consecration** of the Temple **sanctified** Jerusalem **for its time and sanctified** Jerusalem **forever,** and the location of the Temple remains sacred even after the Temple was destroyed, then one should **also** be obligated to bring **a firstborn** animal to the place of the Temple and sacrifice it on an altar and eat it. **If he maintains** that **the initial consecration** of the Temple **sanctified** Jerusalem **for its time but did not sanctify** Jerusalem **forever,** then he should **raise a dilemma even** with regard to **a firstborn,** whether it may be eaten in Jerusalem.


###### Makkot 19a:9
[Makkot 19a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/19a:9)

אָמַר רָבִינָא: לְעוֹלָם קָסָבַר קִדְּשָׁה לִשְׁעָתָהּ וְלֹא קִדְּשָׁה לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא, וְהָכָא בִּבְכוֹר שֶׁנִּזְרַק דָּמוֹ קוֹדֶם חוּרְבַּן הַבַּיִת, וְחָרַב הַבַּיִת וַעֲדַיִין בְּשָׂרוֹ קַיָּים. וּמַקְּשִׁינַן בְּשָׂרוֹ לְדָמוֹ, מָה דָּמוֹ בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ – אַף בְּשָׂרוֹ בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ. וּמַקִּישׁ מַעֲשֵׂר לִבְכוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said: Actually,** Rabbi Yishmael **maintains** that the initial consecration of the Temple **sanctified** Jerusalem **for its time but did not sanctify** Jerusalem **forever; and** why is it obvious to him that the firstborn is not eaten? It is because **here,** he is stating the *halakha* **with regard to** the case of **a firstborn whose blood was sprinkled before the destruction of the Temple, and the Temple was** then **destroyed, and its flesh is still intact. And** based on a juxtaposition: “You shall sprinkle their blood upon the altar…and their flesh shall be for you” (Numbers 18:17–18), **we compare** the status of **its flesh to** the status of **its blood; just as its blood** must be sprinkled **at** a time when the **altar** is standing, **so too its flesh** may be eaten only **at** a time when **the altar** is standing. **And he compares** the status of second-**tithe** produce **to** the status of **a firstborn** offering, and derives that one may partake of second-tithe produce in Jerusalem only when the Temple is standing.


###### Makkot 19a:10
[Makkot 19a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/19a:10)

וְכִי דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד בְּהֶקֵּשׁ חוֹזֵר וּמְלַמֵּד בְּהֶקֵּשׁ? מַעְשַׂר דָּגָן חוּלִּין הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And does a matter derived via juxtaposition then teach** another matter **via juxtaposition?** The principle with regard to the *halakhot* of consecrated matters is that a *halakha* derived via one of the hermeneutical principles cannot serve as the basis for derivation of another *halakha*; each *halakha* requires its own source. The Gemara answers: Second **tithe of grain is non-sacred** produce, and *halakhot* of non-sacred matters derived via hermeneutical principles may serve as the basis for deriving other *halakhot* using hermeneutical principles.