What are the implications of "Lo Suchal Le'echol bi'She'arecha"?
Rashi: It implies (not 'you cannot', but) 'you may not eat [the following] within your gates. 1
Rashi: Like the Pasuk writes (with regard to the Yevusi, the inhabitants of Yerushalayim) in Yehoshua, 15:63 "Lo Yachlu B'nei Yehudah Lehorisham." They were able to drive them out, but were prohibited from doing so due to the covenant Avraham had entered into with the Chitim (Pirkei de'R. Eliezer) when he purchased the Me'aras ha'Machpeilah from them. See also Torah Temimah, note 56, who elaborates.
What is the Torah warning against?
Rashi (in Devarim 26:14): It is a La'av against eating the listed items be'Tum'ah, irrespective of whether the person is Tamei and the Kodshim is Tahor, or vice-vera. 1
Targum Onkelos and Targum Yonasan: It is a La'av against eating Ma'aser Sheini outside the walls of Yerushalayim. 2
Makos, 17a: Based on ?Lifnei Hashem Eloekcha Tochlenu? ? Pasuk 18 ? It teaches us that someone who eats Bikurim before reading the Parshah (and, based on the same Hekesh, someone who eats Ma?aser Sheini after it enters the walls of Yerushalayim receives Malkos ? Makos, 19b) 3
What is this Pasuk coming to add to the afore-mentioned obligation to eat Korbanos within the specified borders?
Rashi: It adds a La'av to someone who transgresses the Asei.
Why does the Torah insert the (otherwise superfluous) word "Lo Suchal Le'echol bi'She'arecha"?
Makos, 16b: In order to learn, via a Gezeirah Shavah "bi'She'arecha" "bi'She'arecha" from Devarim 26:12 - in connection with Ma'aser Ani - that Tevel, from which even just Ma'aser Ani 1 has not been separated, remains Tevel - and is still subject to Misah bi'Yedei Shamayim. 2
Makos, 19a: In order to learn, via a Gezeirah Shavah "bi'She'arecha" from 15:12 "bi'She'arecha Tochlenu, ha'Tamei ve'ha'Tahor ... " - in connection with Ma'aser Sheini - that someone who eats Ma'aser Sheini Tamei is subject to Malkos. 3
Chulin 68b: To extrapolate that it is only in areas ouside Yerushalayim that Ma'aser Sheini and Bikurim 4 may not be eaten but if they are taken back inside the walls of Yerushalayim, they may be eaten. 5
And how much more so Ma?asr Rishon. See Torah Temimah, note 57.
See also Torah Temimah, note 57, who elaborates on the question.
Makos, Ibid.: Meaning that the Tamei which the Torah permitted there is forbidden here.
See Torah Temimah, note 59.
As opposed to Kodshei Kodshim that have left the walls of the Azarah, which may not be eaten even if they are brought back into the Azarah.
What is "Ma'aser Degancha ve'Siroshcha ve'Yitzharecha" referring to?
Torah Temimah (citing Makos, 16b): It is referring to Ma'aser Sheini. 1
Since Ma'aser Rishon and Ma'aser Ani may be eaten by their owners anywhere, even in a graveyard.
Who is the Torah coming to warn?
Rashi: "Bechoros Bekarcha ve'Tzonecha" and "T'rumas Yadecha" (Bikurim) are coming to warn the Kohen 1 to eat his Kodshim within the walls of Yerushalayim.
Whereas all the other items in the Pasuk refer to the owner, whoever he may be.
Why does the Torah need to specify "Ma'asar Deganchah, Tiroshcha ve'Yitzharecha"?
Kerisos, 4a: To teach us that someone who eats all three outside the walls of Yeshulayim is suject to three sets of Malkos. 1
See Torah Temimah, citing Kerisos Ibid. as to why it is not a La'av she'bi'Kelalos. See also note 60.
Seeing as we know the prohibition against eating B'chor outside the walls of Yerushalayim via a Kal va'Chomer from Ma'aser, and against eating it before the blood has been sprinkled via a Kal va'Chomer from Todah and Shelamim, why does the Torah need to insert it?
Makos, 17a: To render a Zar who eats from a B'chor, even after the blood has been sprinkled, subject to Malkos. 1
See Torah Temimah, citing Makos, ibid. and note 63. See also note 61 & 62, where he elaborates on the question.
"Bekarcha ve'Tzoncha" includes Chatas and Asham in the list - as we learned in Pasuk 6. Seeing as we can learn them via a Kal va'Chomer from Ma'aser, Todah and Shelamim, and B'chor (See Torah Temimah, note 65) - as in the previous question and answer - why does the Torah need to include them?
Makos, 19a: To render Chayav Malkos someone who eats a Chatas or an Asham outside the hangings of the Azarah, even after the blood has been sprinkled.
"ve'Chol Nedarecha" includes Olos in the La'av. Seeing as we can learn them via a Kal va'Chomer from Ma'aser, Todah and Shelamim, B'chor and Chatas and Asham, as in the previous question and answer, why does the Torah need to include them?
Makos, 19a: To render Chayav Malkos someone who eats an Olah after the blood has been sprinkled even inside the Azarah. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 66.
've'Nidvosecha" includes Todah and Shelamim in the La'av. Seeing as we can learn the prohibition against eating them outside the Azarah via a Kal va'Chomer from Ma'aser, why does the Torah need to insert them? .
Makos, 19a: To render Chayav Malkos someone who eats from a Todah or from a Shelamim before the blood has been sprinkled.
"T'rumas Yadecha" includes Bikurim in the La'av. Seing as we can learn Bikurim via a Kal va'Chomer from Ma'aser, why does the Torah need to include them?
Makos, 17a: To render Chayav a Kohen who eats Bikurim before the owner has read the Parshah. 1
See Torah Temimah, that although in all the previous D'rashos are Halachah, regarding Bikurim it is not reading the Parshah that permits the Bikurim to be eaten, but from the moment they are broght into the Azarah.
Seeing as "T'rumas Yadecha" refers to Bikurim, as we learnt in Pasuk 6, what are the ramifications of the Hekesh of Bikurim to Ma'aser?
Chulin 68b: Refer to 2:17:2.1:3.
Yevamos, 73b: To forbid an Onan to eat Bikurim - like he is forbidden to eat Ma'aser. 1
As the Torah sprecifically writes in Ki Savo, 26:14. See also Torah Temimah, who explains that the Hekeshim in this Pasuk are not complete Hekeshim, only Asmachtos.
Whom is the Torah coming to warn?
