Study Makkot folio 20A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
he is flogged with one set of lashes, because he ate it without separating teruma of the tithe from the first tithe and is consequently liable for eating untithed produce. Had he separated teruma of the tithe, it would have been permitted for him to eat the entire fig, as it is permitted for a pries
And a non-priest who eats the fig is flogged with two sets of lashes, for both eating untithed produce and eating the teruma therein, which is forbidden for all non-priests. The baraita notes: As if the non-priest ate the fig initially, before separating teruma and tithes, he is flogged with only o
The Talmud infers from the statement in the baraita: And it is a year when second tithe is separated and he is in Jerusalem, that the reason he is flogged with two sets of lashes is that he is currently in Jerusalem, where it is permitted to partake of second-tithe produce. But if he ate the fig in
The Talmud asks: If so, what is the purpose of stating this halakha? If the fig entered and exited Jerusalem there is no novel element in the fact that one is liable to receive lashes. The Talmud answers: There is a novel element in this halakha, as what are we dealing with here? We are dealing wit
The Talmud asks: And does R' Yosei hold that the status of gifts that were not yet separated from the produce is like that of gifts that were already separated? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that R' Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of R' Yosei: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree with