Pisqa’ 7286H:125-126;JN1:208-211. 1. “You will be unable to eat within your gates” (Dt.12:17). R. Joshua b. Qorhah says: [The point of the verse is,] I am capable of eating such foods, but I am not permitted to do so. And, making a similar point, you can say: “As for the Jebusite inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Judahites were not able to disinherit them” (Josh.15:63)— they were capable of expelling the Jebusites, but were not permitted to do so.
2. “The Tithe” (ma`aser; Dt.12:17)— I might infer only that [the Tithe must be consumed in Jerusalem] in a state of [cultic] cleanness. On what basis do I know that [it may not be consumed beyond the walls of Jerusalem] in a state of [cultic] uncleanness?87The elliptical syntax of the Hebrew is difficult. I follow RH and most interpreters in linking the passage to the Second Tithe, which must be eaten in Jerusalem in a state of cultic cleanness. The Teaching states: “Your grain” (Dt.12:17)— [unclean grain is not “yours” to eat beyond Jerusalem].
On what basis do I know that [the Tithe] must be purchased in exchange for [consecrated] Tithe-money? The Teaching states: “Your must” (Dt.12:17)— [the purchase entitles you to consume it in Jerusalem].
I might infer only that [the Tithe may be consumed] in a state of [cultic] cleanness. On what basis do I know that [it may not be consumed] in a state of [cultic] uncleanness? The Teaching states: “Your oil” (Dt.12:17)— [unclean oil is not “yours”].
R. Shimon says: inferring from what is stated— “I have not eaten from it in my time of mourning, nor have I removed any of it while unclean” (Dt.26:14)— [the Torah warns against eating Tithe while mourning] I have no idea where in the Torah he is so warned! The Teaching states: “You will be unable to eat within your gates the Tithe” (Dt.12:17)— [consider “you will be unable” as due warning].88So RH.
3. Is it possible to say that one who bestows [produce] as a gift should be held liable [for eating within your gates]? The Teaching states: “You will be unable to eat within your gates the Tithe” (Dt.12:17)— that is, the one who consumes it as a gift is held liable, but one who bestows it as a gift is not held liable.
R. Yose the Galilean says: Is it possible to say that they should only be held liable for consuming untithed produce from which no offerings had been removed? On what basis do I know that they would be held liable even if the Threshing-floor-offering were removed from the produce, but the First-tithe had not been removed from it; or if the First-tithe had been removed but the Second-tithe had not been removed from it; or even if only the Pauper’s tithe [had been removed]?89//T. Mak. 4:4. The Teaching states: “You will be unable to eat within your gates” (Dt.12:17)— [that is, all the mandated offerings must be removed from your domain before consuming the Second-tithe].
4. R. Shimon says: this verse comes only to require a partition between some Holy offerings (qodashim) and other Holy offerings as follows:90Cf. Pisqa’ 71.4
“The offering of your hands” (terumat yadekha; Dt.12:17)— these are the First-fruits. Now, what is the verse coming to teach us? Is the point to prohibit consumption of First-fruits beyond the wall of Jerusalem? [No!] For this is a logical inference from the case of Second-tithe. Just as Second-tithe is permitted for non-Priests, yet one who consumes it beyond the wall of Jerusalem transgresses a proscription (viz., Dt.14:22-25)— isn’t it only logical that in the case of First-fruits, which are prohibited to non-Priests one who consumes it beyond the wall of Jerusalem should also transgress a proscription? Therefore, [the verse must have some other application]! It comes only to teach us that one who consumes First-fruits before declaiming over them [the confession (i.e., Dt.26:5ff,)] transgresses a proscription.91//M. Mak.3:3.
5. “Or your Voluntary offerings” (Dt.12:17)— these are the Thanks-offering (todah)92e.g., Lv.22:29and the Communion-offering. Now, what is the verse coming to teach us? Is the point to impose liability upon a consumer of the Thanks-offering and the Communion-offering beyond the wall of Jerusalem? [No!] For this is a logical inference from the case of Second-tithe. Just as Second-tithe, for which one is not held liable, when offering it without proper intention (pigul)93Lv.19:5-8 defines as pigul (“offensive”) sacrificial meat that has remained uneaten ‘till the third day.” In rabbinic sacrificial theory the term is re-interpreted to refer to an improper intention, formed in the mind of the sacrificer while slaughtering an animal or conveying its blood to the altar for sprinkling, to eat the meat beyond the time allotted for the meat’s disposition. The penalty for intentionally eating pigul is divine excision (M. Zev.2:1-3; M. Ker. 1:1)., or for eating it as left-overs (notar),94By contrast to pigul, notar (“left-overs”) results when the intention had not been improper and the animal’s blood had been sprinkled upon the altar, but part of it remained after the proper time for eating it hads passed. Meat in the status of notar may not be eaten, but the offering is considered to achieve atonement.. Thereafter, one who eats the leftovers is liable to the punishment of excision (M. Ker.1:1). or for eating it while unclean (tam’ei), yet one who consumes it beyond the wall of Jerusalem transgresses a proscription— in the cases of the Thanks-offering and Communion-offering, for which one is held liable when offering it without proper intention, or for eating it as left-overs, or for eating it while unclean— isn’t it only logical that one who consumes it beyond the wall of Jerusalem should also transgress a proscription? Therefore,[the verse must have some other application]! It comes only to teach us that one who consumes the Thanks-offering or Communion-offering before the sprinkling of its blood transgresses a proscription.
6. “And Firstlings” (Dt.12:17)— this is the first-born [of its mother]. Now, what is the verse coming to teach us? Is the point to impose liability upon the consumer of the Firstling beyond the wall of Jerusalem? [No!] For this is a logical deduction from the case of the [Cattle-] tithe. Is the point, rather, to permit consumption of the Firstling before the sprinkling of the blood? [No!] For this is a logical deduction from the case of the Thanks-offering and Communion-offering. Just as the Thanks-offering and the Communion-offering are permitted to commoners – yet one who consumes them before the sprinkling of the blood transgresses a proscription— isn’t it only logical that one who consumes the Firstling before the sprinkling of the blood should also transgress a proscription? Therefore, [the verse must have some other application]! It comes only to teach us that the commoner who ate the meat of a Firstling— whether before the sprinkling of the blood, whether after the sprinkling of the blood— transgresses a proscription.
(דברים יב יז) לֹא תוּכַל לֶאֱכֹל בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה אוֹמֵר: יָכוֹל אֲנִי, אֲבָל אֵינִי רַשַּׁי. כַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ אַתָּה אוֹמֵר (יהושע טו סג): ״וְאֶת הַיְבוּסִי יוֹשְׁבֵי יְרוּשָׁלִַם לֹא יָכְלוּ בְּנֵי יְהוּדָה לְהוֹרִישָׁם״ – יְכוֹלִים הָיוּ, אֲבָל אֵין רַשָּׁיִים.
Pisqa’ 7286H:125-126;JN1:208-211.
1. “You will be unable to eat within your gates” (Dt.12:17).
R. Joshua b. Qorhah says:
[The point of the verse is,]
I am capable of eating such foods,
but I am not permitted to do so.
And, making a similar point, you can say:
“As for the Jebusite inhabitants of Jerusalem,
the Judahites were not able to disinherit them” (Josh.15:63)—
they were capable of expelling the Jebusites,
but were not permitted to do so.
מַעְשַׂר, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא טָהוֹר. טָמֵא מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: דְּגָנְךָ.
2. “The Tithe” (ma`aser; Dt.12:17)—
I might infer only that
[the Tithe must be consumed in Jerusalem]
in a state of [cultic] cleanness.
On what basis do I know that
[it may not be consumed beyond the walls of Jerusalem]
in a state of [cultic] uncleanness?87The elliptical syntax of the Hebrew is difficult. I follow RH and most interpreters in linking the passage to the Second Tithe, which must be eaten in Jerusalem in a state of cultic cleanness.
The Teaching states:
“Your grain” (Dt.12:17)—
[unclean grain is not “yours” to eat beyond Jerusalem].
לָקוּחַ בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: תִּירוֹשְׁךָ.
On what basis do I know that
[the Tithe] must be purchased
in exchange for [consecrated] Tithe-money?
The Teaching states:
“Your must” (Dt.12:17)—
[the purchase entitles you to consume it in Jerusalem].
אֵין לִי אֶלָּא טָהוֹר. טָמֵא מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: וְיִצְהָרֶךָ.
I might infer only that
[the Tithe may be consumed]
in a state of [cultic] cleanness.
On what basis do I know that
[it may not be consumed]
in a state of [cultic] uncleanness?
The Teaching states:
“Your oil” (Dt.12:17)—
[unclean oil is not “yours”].
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מִכְּלָל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כו יד) ״לֹא אָכַלְתִּי בְאֹנִי מִמֶּנּוּ וְלֹא בִעַרְתִּי מִמֶּנּוּ בְּטָמֵא״, הֵיכָן הוּא מֻזְהָר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ! תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: לֹא תוּכַל לֶאֱכֹל בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ מַעְשַׂר.
R. Shimon says:
inferring from what is stated—
“I have not eaten from it in my time of mourning,
nor have I removed any of it while unclean” (Dt.26:14)—
[the Torah warns against eating Tithe while mourning]
I have no idea where in the Torah he is so warned!
The Teaching states:
“You will be unable to eat within your gates the Tithe” (Dt.12:17)—
[consider “you will be unable” as due warning].88So RH.
יָכוֹל הַנּוֹתֵן בְּמַתָּנָה יְהֵא חַיָּב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: לֹא תוּכַל לֶאֱכֹל בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ מַעְשַׂר, הָאוֹכֵל חַיָּב, וְאֵין הַנּוֹתֵן בְּמַתָּנָה חַיָּב.
3. Is it possible to say that
one who bestows [produce] as a gift
should be held liable [for eating within your gates]?
The Teaching states:
“You will be unable to eat within your gates the Tithe” (Dt.12:17)—
that is, the one who consumes it as a gift
is held liable,
but one who bestows it as a gift is not held liable.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: יָכוֹל לֹא יְהוּ חַיָּבִים אֶלָּא עַל טֶבֶל שֶׁלֹּא הוּרַם מִמֶּנּוּ כְּלוּם? מִנַּיִן הוּרַם מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמָה וְלֹא הוּרַם מִמֶּנּוּ מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן, מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן וְלֹא הוּרַם מִמֶּנּוּ מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וַאֲפִלּוּ מַעֲשֵׂר עָנִי מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: לֹא תוּכַל לֶאֱכֹל בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ.
R. Yose the Galilean says:
Is it possible to say that
they should only be held liable for consuming
untithed produce from which no offerings had been removed?
On what basis do I know that
they would be held liable even if
the Threshing-floor-offering were removed from the produce,
but the First-tithe had not been removed from it;
or if the First-tithe had been removed
but the Second-tithe had not been removed from it;
or even if only the Pauper’s tithe [had been removed]?89//T. Mak. 4:4.
The Teaching states:
“You will be unable to eat within your gates” (Dt.12:17)—
[that is, all the mandated offerings must be removed
from your domain before consuming the Second-tithe].
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לֹא בָא הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא לִתֵּן מְחִצָּה בֵּין קָדָשִׁים לְקָדָשִׁים.
4. R. Shimon says:
this verse comes only to require a partition
between some Holy offerings (qodashim)
and other Holy offerings as follows:90Cf. Pisqa’ 71.4
וּתְרוּמַת יָדֶךָ – אֵלּוּ הַבִּכּוּרִים. וְכִי מַה בָּא הַכָּתוּב לְלַמְּדֵנוּ? אִם לְאוֹכֵל בִּכּוּרִים חוּץ לַחוֹמָה – קַל וָחוֹמֶר מִמַּעֲשֵׂר: מַה מַּעֲשֵׂר, שֶׁמֻּתָּר לְזָרִים, הָאוֹכֵל מִמֶּנּוּ חוּץ לַחוֹמָה עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, בִּכּוּרִים, שֶׁאֲסוּרִים לְזָרִים, הָאוֹכֵל מֵהֶם חוּץ לַחוֹמָה אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיְּהֵא עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה? הָא לֹא בָּא הַכָּתוּב לְלַמֶּדְךָ, אֶלָּא לְאוֹכֵל בִּכּוּרִים עַד שֶׁלֹּא קָרָא עֲלֵיהֶם, שֶׁעוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה.
“The offering of your hands” (terumat yadekha; Dt.12:17)—
these are the First-fruits.
Now, what is the verse coming to teach us?
Is the point to prohibit consumption of First-fruits
beyond the wall of Jerusalem?
[No!]
For this is a logical inference
from the case of Second-tithe.
Just as Second-tithe is permitted for non-Priests,
yet one who consumes it beyond the wall of Jerusalem
transgresses a proscription (viz., Dt.14:22-25)—
isn’t it only logical that
in the case of First-fruits,
which are prohibited to non-Priests
one who consumes it beyond the wall of Jerusalem
should also transgress a proscription?
Therefore, [the verse must have some other application]!
It comes only to teach us that
one who consumes First-fruits
before declaiming over them [the confession (i.e., Dt.26:5ff,)]
transgresses a proscription.91//M. Mak.3:3.
וְנִדְבֹתֶיךָ – אֵלּוּ תּוֹדָה וּשְׁלָמִים. וְכִי מָה בָּא הַכָּתוּב לְלַמְּדֵנוּ? אִם לְאוֹכֵל תּוֹדָה וּשְׁלָמִים חוּץ לַחוֹמָה, קַל וָחוֹמֶר מִמַּעֲשֵׂר: מַה מַּעֲשֵׂר, שֶׁאֵין חַיָּבִים עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל וְנוֹתָר וְטָמֵא, הָאוֹכֵל מִמֶּנּוּ חוּץ לַחוֹמָה עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, תּוֹדָה וּשְׁלָמִים, שֶׁחַיָּבִים עֲלֵיהֶם מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל וְנוֹתָר וְטָמֵא, הָאוֹכֵל מֵהֶם חוּץ לַחוֹמָה אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיְּהֵא עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה? הָא לֹא בָּא הַכָּתוּב לְלַמֶּדְךָ, אֶלָּא לְאוֹכֵל תּוֹדָה וּשְׁלָמִים לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמִים – שֶׁעוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה.
5. “Or your Voluntary offerings” (Dt.12:17)—
these are the Thanks-offering (todah)92e.g., Lv.22:29and the Communion-offering.
Now, what is the verse coming to teach us?
Is the point to impose liability upon a consumer of
the Thanks-offering and the Communion-offering
beyond the wall of Jerusalem?
[No!]
For this is a logical inference
from the case of Second-tithe.
Just as Second-tithe,
for which one is not held liable,
when offering it without proper intention (pigul)93Lv.19:5-8 defines as pigul (“offensive”) sacrificial meat that has remained uneaten ‘till the third day.” In rabbinic sacrificial theory the term is re-interpreted to refer to an improper intention, formed in the mind of the sacrificer while slaughtering an animal or conveying its blood to the altar for sprinkling, to eat the meat beyond the time allotted for the meat’s disposition. The penalty for intentionally eating pigul is divine excision (M. Zev.2:1-3; M. Ker. 1:1).,
or for eating it as left-overs (notar),94By contrast to pigul, notar (“left-overs”) results when the intention had not been improper and the animal’s blood had been sprinkled upon the altar, but part of it remained after the proper time for eating it hads passed. Meat in the status of notar may not be eaten, but the offering is considered to achieve atonement.. Thereafter, one who eats the leftovers is liable to the punishment of excision (M. Ker.1:1).
or for eating it while unclean (tam’ei),
yet one who consumes it beyond
the wall of Jerusalem
transgresses a proscription—
in the cases of the
Thanks-offering and Communion-offering,
for which one is held liable
when offering it without proper intention,
or for eating it as left-overs,
or for eating it while unclean—
isn’t it only logical that
one who consumes it beyond the wall of Jerusalem
should also transgress a proscription?
Therefore,[the verse must have some other application]!
It comes only to teach us that
one who consumes the Thanks-offering or Communion-offering
before the sprinkling of its blood
transgresses a proscription.
וּבְכֹרֹת – זֶה הַבְּכוֹר. וְכִי מָה בָּא הַכָּתוּב לְלַמְּדֵנוּ? אִם לְאוֹכֵל בְּכוֹר חוּץ לַחוֹמָה, קַל וָחֹמֶר מִמַּעֲשֵׂר; אִם לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמִים, קַל וָחֹמֶר מִתּוֹדָה וּשְׁלָמִים: מָה תּוֹדָה וּשְׁלָמִים, שֶׁמֻּתָּרִים לְזָרִים, הָאוֹכֵל מֵהֶם לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמִים עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, בְּכוֹר, שֶׁאָסוּר לְזָרִים, הָאוֹכֵל מִמֶּנּוּ לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמִים אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיְּהֵא עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה? הָא לֹא בָּא הַכָּתוּב לְלַמֶּדְךָ, אֶלָּא לְזָר שֶׁאָכַל בְּשַׂר בְּכוֹר בֵּין לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמִים בֵּין לְאַחַר זְרִיקַת דָּמִים, שֶׁעוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה.
6. “And Firstlings” (Dt.12:17)—
this is the first-born [of its mother].
Now, what is the verse coming to teach us?
Is the point to impose liability upon the consumer of
the Firstling beyond the wall of Jerusalem?
[No!]
For this is a logical deduction
from the case of the [Cattle-] tithe.
Is the point, rather, to permit consumption of
the Firstling before the sprinkling of the blood?
[No!]
For this is a logical deduction
from the case of the Thanks-offering and Communion-offering.
Just as the Thanks-offering and the Communion-offering
are permitted to commoners –
yet one who consumes them before the sprinkling of the blood
transgresses a proscription—
isn’t it only logical that
one who consumes the Firstling before the sprinkling of the blood
should also transgress a proscription?
Therefore, [the verse must have some other application]!
It comes only to teach us that
the commoner who ate the meat of a Firstling—
whether before the sprinkling of the blood,
whether after the sprinkling of the blood—
transgresses a proscription.