Pisqa’ 72¹

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?²

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].³

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]?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:⁵

“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.⁶

5

“Or your Voluntary offerings” (Dt.12:17)—

these are the Thanks-offering (todah)⁷and 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)⁸,

or for eating it as left-overs (notar),⁹

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.

1. H:125-126;JN1:208-211.
2. The 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.
3. So RH.
4. //T. Mak. 4:4.
5. Cf. Pisqa’ 71.4
6. //M. Mak.3:3.
7. e.g., Lv.22:29
8. Lv.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).
9. By 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).