Makkot 19a
Question: Rava bar Adda in the name of R’ Yitzchak: From what point does one get a penalty for eating Bikkurim?
Answer: When they enter the courtyard of the Beit HaMikdash.
Support: R’ Eliezer taught in a Baraita: if Bikkurim were found partly inside the courtyard and partly outside (some fruits were inside the courtyard, and some were not) – the fruits that are inside are like regular fruits, and the fruits that are outside are considered Hekdesh.
Statement: Rav Sheishet: For Bikkurim, the placement before the Mizbeach is essential, while the reading of the Pesukim is not.
Question: Which Tanna does this agree with?
Introduction to Answer: In a Baraita: R’ Yose taught three things in the name of three elders, here is one of them: R’ Yishmael says: You might think that you could bring your Maaser Sheni to Jerusalem and eat it, even when there is no Beit HaMikdash. This argument is refuted, though. We can form a connection between the Bechor offering and Maaser Sheni – just as Bechor offering requires going to Jerusalem, so too Maaser Sheni requires going to Jerusalem; therefore, just as Bechor can only be brought during the times of the Beit Hamikdash, so too Maaser Sheni can only be brought during the times of the Beit Hamikdash. However, this connection is refuted because how can you connect Maaser Sheni to the Bechor offering, which requires placing blood and sacrificial parts on the Mizbeach, while Maaser Sheni does not require that? Therefore we cannot say through this connection that Maaser Sheni can only be brought to Jerusalem/eaten during the times of the Beit Hamikdash. Perhaps, maybe we can say that we can learn this from a connection to Bikkurim – since they also are only eaten during the times of the Beit HaMikdash. However, this connection is also refuted because Bikkurim require one to place them before the Mizbeach, while Maaser Sheni does not. Therefore we cannot say through this connection either that Maaser Sheni can only be brought to Jerusalem/eaten during the times of the Beit Hamikdash. Instead, let us derive this rule from a textual source. The Pasuk says “And you shall eat before HaShem, your G-d…the Maaser [Sheni] of your grain…and the first-born of your cattle and your flocks”. There is a Hekeish between Maaser Sheni and Bechor offering here because the Torah states their requirement together in the same pasuk. This Hekeish teaches us that just as the Bechor offering can only be eaten/brought during the times of the Beit HaMikdash, so too the Maaser Sheni can only be eaten/brought during the times of the Beit HaMikdash. Answer: If R’ Yishmael holds that recitation of the verses is essential, then he would have said that we can not connect Maaser Sheni to Bikkurim because of the requirement to place them before the Mizbeach AND to recite the verses. Therefore, since he did not mention the requirement to recite the verses as a reason we can’t connect them, we can infer that R’ Yishmael thinks that the placement before the Mizbeach is essential and not the recitation of the verses.
Attack: Rav Ashi: Even if the recitation is not essential, there is still a mitzvah to recite the verses. Therefore, let R’ Yishmael say that there is a mitzvah to recite the verses before eating the Bikkurim, and then Bikkurim and Maaser Sheni would be different because of that mitzvah!
Answer: Rav Ashi: R’ Yishmael could not state the requirement to recite the verses because there could be a case where a convert brings Bikkurim, and then he would have to say the pasuk about the land “that HaShem has promised to our fathers”, which he would not be able to say since HaShem did not promise it to his fathers. Therefore, R’ Yishmael did not mention the recitation.
Question: Why didn’t R’ Yishmael learn this rule about Maaser Sheni from the Bechor offering and Bikkurim together? Even though both have an individual difference with Maaser Sheni, they should be able to teach the rule together.
Answer: R’ Yishmael still needed a textual source because Maaser Sheni is different than Bechor offering and Bikkurim together – both the Bechor offering and Bikkurim have involvement with the Mizbeach, while Maaser Sheni has no involvement with the Mizbeach. Therefore, we can’t learn the rule from here; we need a textual source to prove that Maaser Sheni can only be eaten/brought during the times of the Beit HaMikdash.
Question: Why does R’ Yishmael assume that are not allowed to eat the Bechor offering when it is not during the times of the Beit HaMikdash? If it is the site of the Beit HaMikdash that makes the offering holy from then on, then we should be able to eat it now in Jerusalem. And if it is only for that time that it is holy, then why would we be able to eat it now anyway?
Answer: Ravina: R’ Yishmael holds that the holiness of the site of the Beit HaMikdash is what makes the offering holy for its time only. But here, this is a case where the Beit HaMikdash was already destroyed, but the meat of the offering was not eaten yet. Therefore, according to R’ Yishmael the meat can not be eaten anymore because we connect the meat of the Bechor offering to its blood through a Hekeish. Just as the service of the blood is dependent upon there being a Mizbeach, so too the eating of the meat is dependent upon there being a Mizbeach. And in the Baraita R’ Yishmael connects Maaser Sheni to Bechor offering through the Hekeish and shows that just as with the Bechor offering you can not eat it without the Beit HaMikdash, so too with Maaser Sheni you can not eat it without the Beit HaMikdash.
Question: But with regard to ‘sacrificial matters’, can something be derived from a double Hekeish?
Answer: Maaser Sheni is not a sacrificial matter.
QUESTION: R’ Yishmael rejected the (non-textual) connections between Maaser Sheni and Bechor offering/Bikkurim because Maaser Sheni is different than them in certain ways. But why should this be a reason not to learn one thing from another? Of course they are going to be different - no two mitzvot are ever going to be exactly the same. So how can we say that you can only learn one thing from another if there are no differences between them if that is not going to happen?
I think that the reason a connection between them can't be made is not solely because they are different, because as you said, no two mitzvot are the same. However, the connection can't be made because Bikkurim and the bechor offering are fundamentally different than Nasser sheni, as they require something to do with the mizeach and maaser sheni does not. therefore, just because something applies to them, it might not apply to something like maaser sheni which doesn't require a mizbeach.
ReplyDeleteThis is similar to something we learned in class, on daf מא when we discussed the source for shlichut and when the gemara was going to make a binyan av between two things, many times it said, מה ל...שכן ישנן for example, we said we can't learn גירושין from תרומה because גירושין is חול compared to תרומה. This example shows that two things can't be compared if one is "stricter" than the other because alhough no two mitzvot are the same, you can't learn something from another mitzvah that is on a different level, so to speak/ has an important distinguinshing factor than the first.
Therefore the connection brought above(in מכות) doesn't work, and in fact the gemara uses the same language as used in קידושין to show this. it says ...מה ל... שכן ישנן
I agree with Elisheva. It's not necessarily that the mitzvot are different that makes us unable to make a connection, its because the situation/category is different. Every single mitzvah is not the same, but in order to learn from one mitzvah to another, the context has to be similar enough to make a connection, enough to make them the same category of mitzvah.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Elisheva and Margi have already said. No Mitzvot are exactly the same, so it would be difficult to say that we can only make connections between mitzvoth that are exactly the same, but at the same time, we can only make non textual connections between Mitzvoth that are quite similar. In this case, the Bechor offering/Bikurim is not similar enough to Ma'aser Sheni to make the connection.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to these agricultural laws, we tend to group the many topics of Seder Zeraim together because they're a little foreign to our non-agrarian society and culture today, but by noting the differences between these to and separating, we are able to see and understand the major differences between them.
ReplyDeleteAlong with what several other people said, I think that all mitzvoth are different and that gives each specific mitzvah its own meaning and ability to have a connection with. However, in order to make a connection and learn one mitzvah from another it must have a similar background or context.
ReplyDeleteI think Tamar raised a good point. We are no experts in agricultural law, as it does not really apply to our life, and so we don't realize how different the two korbanot are. To us it may seem that they are similar, but if we look closely at the differences, such as a need for a mizbaeach or not, we can realize that really they are not all that similar even though they both are apart of Seder Zeraim.
ReplyDelete