Rashi 13a DH u'Maaser follows the original understanding, that the Mishnah is referring to someone who eats pure Maaser Sheni outside Jerusalem. Rashi explains this way because the Mishnah gives no indication that the Maaser Sheni is tamei. Therefore the only apparent problem with the Maaser Sheni would be that it was consumed outside of Jerusalem.

However this original understanding must be ammended when we reach 19b. This is because the Mishnah 17a refers to the prohibition of eating Maaser Sheni outside the walls of Jerusalem. The Gemara 19b therefore asks why does the Mishnah say the same thing twice, both on 13a and also on 17a, that there is a prohibition against eating Maaser Sheni outside Jerusalem?! The Gemara resolves the problem by saying that 13a refers to eating tamei maaser sheni inside Jerusalem, whilst 17a refers to eating to eating pure maaser sheni outside Jerusalem.

It therefore transpires that Rashi 13a is not consistent with the conclusion of the Gemara in 19b. However, this is not worrying, because Rashi's is a running commentary which explains the Mishnah or Gemara according to the stage of proceedings we are at in the present moment, rather than necessarily according to the conclusion. Therefore, since one sees that when the Gemara 19b asked it's question, we thought at that stage that 13a was referring to eating maaser sheni outside of Jerusalem, this is why Rashi explained thus on 13a. It was only in the answer of the Gemara that we changed our minds, but since we did not yet know this when we learn the Mishnah 13a, therefore Rashi explained there that the maaser sheni was consumed outside Jerusalem.

Wishing you a Ketivah v'Chatimah Tovah and a vey Good Yomtov.

Dovid Bloom

1) I found, bs'd, that the Aruch LeNer on Makos 13a, asks your question. He writes, in a similar vein to what I wrote above, that the way of Rashi is to explain in the Mishnah according to the understanding of the Gemara later on when it asks a question on the Mishnah, but not according to the answer of the Gemara to this question. However, Aruch LeNer asserts that in this particular case, this rule of thumb in Rashi will not help us. This is because the sugya on 19b is not applying to our Mishnah on 13a, but rather to a different Mishnah on 17a. Aruch LeNer asserts that the rule that Rashi explains according to the question, not according to the answer, only applies when all the discussion concentrates around one Mishnah, but if Rashi is explaining one Mishnah, he should explain according to the answer of the Gemara on a different Mishnah. Therefore Aruch LaNer remains without an answer to your question.

2) However, I believe that we can answer the question of the Aruch LaNer according to something that I found out recently when we learnt the first Mishnah of Sanhedrin, the present tractate of the worldwide dafyomi cycle. We noted then, that the entire Mishnah of the first chapter of Sanhedrin is cited all together at the beginning of the chapter, and there is no more Mishnah in the whole of the first chapter; only Gemara. This contrasts with the way that the Mishnah is cited in the edtions of the Mishnah with the commentary of the Bartenura and Tosofs Yomtov etc. In the latter, the Mishnah is divided up into 6 parts.

3) I cited then a website article

daf-yomi.com/DYItemDetails.aspx?itemid=4005

It is explained there that in most of the handwritten manuscripts of the Talmud, before the invention of printing, in each chapter of Gemara the entire Mishnah of the chapter is cited altogether, and only later does the commentary of the Gemara on the Mishnah start. After the invention of printing, the printers divided the Mishnah of most chapters into a number of different parts, to make what we refer to nowadays as "Mishnayos".

4) However, in the time of Rashi, the Mishnah on any chapter had not yet been divided up into several Mishnayos. Therefore we can assume that the entire Mishnah of the third chapter of Masekes Makos, was in fact all cited in one shot. So the Mishnah on 13a and the Mishnah on 17a is all one Mishnah. Therefore the objection of Aruch LaNer to his own explanation in Rashi, will not apply. This is because Rashi on 13a is referring to a sugya on 19b that does indeed apply to the same Mishnah as that of 13a. Therefore the rule that Rashi does not relate to the end of the sugya still applies, and our original explanation of Rashi is still good.

Gmar Chatimah Tovah

Dovid Bloom