There is an apparent inconsistency in Rashi's commentary concerning the Mishnah on Makos daf 13b. There, on daf 13b, Rashi writes:
DH u'Maaser Sheni she'Lo Nifdeh- v'Hu Ochlo Chutz l'Yerushalayim ...
However, later, on Makos daf 19b, discussing the same Mishnah, Rashi writes-
DH Reisha Maaser Sheni Tamei- v'Ka'Achil Leih b'Yerushalayim b'Lo Pediyah
The first comment says that the discussion concerns eating ma'aser sheni outside of Jerusalem, but the second comment on the same subject says that the discussion concerns eating ma'aser sheni inside Jerusalem.
I can't understand why this discrepancy exists, and why no mephorashim I looked into commented on that. Could you explain Rashi's apparent inconsistency please?
I thank you for your help.
Eric Chevlen, Youngstown, Ohio, United States of America
Rashi 13a (DH u'Ma'aser) follows the original understanding, that the Mishnah is referring to someone who eats pure (Tahor) Ma'aser Sheni outside Jerusalem. Rashi explains this way because the Mishnah gives no indication that the Ma'aser Sheni is Tamei. Therefore, the only apparent problem with the Ma'aser Sheni would be that it was consumed outside of Jerusalem.
However, this original understanding must be amended when we reach 19b. This is because the Mishnah on 17a refers to the prohibition of eating Ma'aser 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 Ma'aser Sheni outside of Jerusalem? The Gemara resolves the problem by saying that the Mishnah on 13a refers to eating Tamei Ma'aser Sheni inside Jerusalem, while the Mishnah on 17a refers to eating Tahor Ma'aser Sheni outside of Jerusalem.
It transpires that Rashi on 13a indeed is not consistent with the conclusion of the Gemara in 19b. However, this is not problematic, because Rashi 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 according to the conclusion. Therefore, since one sees that when the Gemara on 19b asked its question, we thought at that stage that 13a was referring to eating Ma'aser Sheni outside of Jerusalem; this is why Rashi explained thusly on 13a. It was only in the answer of the Gemara that we changed our understanding, but since we did not yet know this when we learned the Mishnah on 13a, Rashi explained there that the Ma'aser Sheni was consumed outside Jerusalem.
G'mar Chasimah Tovah,
Dovid Bloom
So this leads on to my next problem that if Kares and malkus is one punishment then the Gemara should have added this in its answer when it says Aval Misah u'Malkus Misah Arichta Hi and the gemara should have said that misa and malkus and Kares and malkus is one punishment?
Kores is a sort of misah, so when the Gemara states that misah and malkus is one punishment this also includes the fact that kores and malkus is one punishment. See Tosfos Yevamos 2a DH Eishes in the name of Riva that the difference between kores and misah at the hands of Heaven is that kores is at 50 and misah bedai Shamayim at 60.
KOL TUV
Dovid Bloom