*30.2 Makkos Daf 20A (5 lines before spreads)*

*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”.*Summary**Rabbah: 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. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate