Makkos Daf 17 מאקוס דַף 17

On Daf 13a, Rebbe Shimon argued that one receives malkus for eating a single prohibited חטה – wheat kernel. Rav Bivi quoted Rebbe Shimon ben Lakish as saying that Rebbe Shimon’s opinion is specifically for a חטה, which he considers a בריה (an entire creation), אבל בקמח דברי הכל כזית – but regarding ground flour, all agree a כזית is required for malkus. Rebbe Yirmiyah quoted him saying that Rebbe Shimon argue seven by flour, and does not require any shiur for malkus. In the Mishnah, the Chochomim told Rebbe Shimon that one is only liable for eating an ant (smaller than a כזית), which is its created form, and Rebbe Shimon replied: אף חטה אחת כברייתה – a single wheat kernel is also its created form. This proves he would require a כזית for flour!? The Gemara answers that Rebbe Shimon is only responding to the Rabbonon’s own reasoning, but he himself would obligate malkus for a כל שהוא of flour.

This position is supported by a Baraisa, in which Rebbe Shimon says: כל שהוא למכות – any minimal amount suffices for incurring malkus; לא אמרו כזית אלא לענין קרבן – they only spoke of requiring a כזית regarding having to bring a korban.

The next Mishnah lists more prohibitions punished with malkus, beginning with: האוכל בכורים עד שלא קרא עליהם – one who eats bikkurim before [the owner] recites the requisite pesukim. Rebbe Yochanan says this is the opinion of רבי עקיבא סתימתאה – Rebbe Akiva the unnamed opinion (so called because anonymous views in Mishnayos are often his). However, the Chochomim hold regarding bikkurim: הנחה מעכבת בהן – placing them before the מזבח is critical to them, קריאה אין מעכבת בהן – but the recitation of the pesukim is not critical to them, and they can be eaten before the קריאה. The Gemara points out that although Rebbe Yochanan sought to teach that Rebbe Akiva holds קריאה is מעכב, Rebbe Shimon holds the same way. A lengthy Baraisa is quoted, in which Rebbe Shimon darshens different phrases of the passuk prohibiting eating certain items outside Yerushalayim. Each item, which he argues can be derived from the previous one with a kal vachomer, teaches an additional prohibition. The first phrase refers to bikkurim, and since its prohibition outside Yerushalayim can be derived from maaser sheni, it must teach that eating bikkurim before קריאה incurs malkus.

At the conclusion of Rebbe Shimon’s Baraisa, Rava marveled: דילידא אימיה כר' שמעון תיליד – [everyone’s] mother giving birth should daven that she should give birth to one like Rebbe Shimon, ואי לא לא תיליד – and if not, she should not give birth! This, despite the fact that every kal vachomer advanced by Rebbe Shimon can be challenged, as Rava proceeds to explain. The Gemara clarifies Rava’s declaration.

The Gemara wonders how Rebbe Shimon can obligate malkus on the basis of a kal vachomer: וכי מזהירין מן הדין – can we establish a prohibition (with malkus) based on the [a kal vachomer]? Even according to the opinion that עונשין מן הדין – we can establish punishment (for a known prohibition) based on [a kal vachomer], he agrees that אין מזהירין מן הדין!? [Rashi says this refers to Rebbe Yitzchak’s opinion from Daf 14a] The Gemara concedes to the question and answers: איסורא בעלמא – Rebbe Shimon uses the kal vachomer to derive a mere prohibition, not with a punishment of malkus.

However, the Gemara proves from our Mishnah that some of the prohibitions mentioned by Rebbe Shimon do receive malkus (e.g., eating bikkurim before קריאה), and will conclude that those are derived from superfluous words in the passuk.