30.2 Makkos Daf 20A (5 lines before spreads)The gemara inferred from one _beraisa_ that according to Rabbi Yosi: One is liable for eating _maaser_ outside of Yerushalayim, even though it had only been brought into the city in a _tevel_ state. This is in keeping with the rule that “Potential _matanos_ are considered separated”.However, another _beraisa_ quoted Rabbi Yosi recording the opinion of Beis Hillel that one can still redeem _maaser_ that had been in Yerushalayim while stillin a _tevel_ state. This is in keeping with the rule that “Potential _matanos_ are not considered separated”.SummaryRabbah: Eating _maaser_ outside of Yerushalayim is a Torah prohibition. Redeeming _maaser_ that was once in Yerushalayim is a rabbinic prohibition.With regard to the Torah law, we’re strict and follow the opinion that “Potential _matanos_ are considered separated”. With regard to the rabbinic law, we’re lenient._[The gemara’s inference from the first beraisa that “Potential matanos are considered separated”, was a way to explain the chiddush of that beraisa. Ravina now offers to explain the inference differently, thus leaving no contradiction between the beraisas]_Ravina: The _beraisa_ is discussing a case where the _maaser_ is on a long stick (29.5) protruding outside the walls of Yerushalayim and its owner is within the walls. [That’s why there is a _malkos_ liability, not because “Potential _matanos_ are considered separated”.] The question of Rav Papa (29.5) has thus been resolved based on our inference from this _beraisa._ See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.