Reference for Temurah 41:48

כיון דאי איתיה לדם לא בר זריקה הוא אתי בשר יליף מדם

is the opinion of R'Akiba. For it has been taught: R'Jose reported three things in the name of three Elders.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Ishmael, R. Akiba and Ben 'Azzai.');">³⁹</span> R'Ishmael says: One might say that a man can bring up second tithe and eat it in Jerusalem nowadays? Now we may argue thus: A firstling requires bringing to the [holy] place<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Deut. XII, 11: Thither ye shall bring your burnt-offerings . . and your tithes.');">⁴⁰</span> and [second] tithe requires bringing to the holy place. Just as a firstling is not eaten except when there is a Temple in existence,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the portions of sacrifices destined to be burnt must be burnt on the altar and the application of the blood requires an altar.');">⁴¹</span> so [second] tithe should not be eaten except when there is a Temple in existence! No.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This analogy is not conclusive.');">⁴²</span> If you can say this of the firstling,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it can be brought only when the Temple is in existence.');">⁴³</span> which requires the application of blood to and the burning of sacrificial portions<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Limbs and fat destined for the altar.');">⁴⁴</span> on the altar, shall you say the same of [second] tithe which does not require this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore being different it may perhaps be brought even without the Temple standing.');">⁴⁵</span> Then you may reason thus: Firstfruits require bringing to the holy place<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'And the heave-offerings of your hand' (ibid) is explained as referring to the firstfruits.');">⁴⁶</span> and second tithe requires bringing to the [holy] place. Just as firstfruit are not eaten except when the Temple is in existence, similarly [second] tithe should not be eaten except when the Temple is in existence. [I can however reply:] You can argue so of firstfruits which require setting<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Scripture saying, Thou shalt set it before the Lord thy God (Deut. XXVI, 20) .');">⁴⁷</span> before the altar; but will you say the same of [second] tithe which does not require this? The text therefore states: Thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God the tithe of thy corn and of thy wine and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thine herds and of thy flocks.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XIV, 23.');">⁴⁸</span> It thus compares [second] tithe with a firstling: just as firstling is not eaten except when the Temple is in existence, so second tithe is not eaten except when the Temple is in existence. But why not go around with the argument<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What need is there for a special Scriptural text, And thou shalt eat, etc.?');">⁴⁹</span> and prove the case [of second tithe by analogy] from the common point?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As follows: If you say that the analogy between firstfruits and tithe is not exact, since in the former there is no setting before the altar, then the case of firstling will prove that even without the setting before the altar it is necessary for the Temple to be in existence in order that the firstling can be brought, and the same therefore will apply to second tithe. Again, if you say that firstling is different because it requires the application of its blood to the altar, then the case of firstfruits will prove that although there is no application of blood, only when the Temple stands can they be brought, and the same therefore will apply to second tithe. Firstlings and firstfruits have therefore one point in common, i.e., the need of bringing them to a holy place and that the Temple must be standing, the same then will apply to second tithe, that it will be brought only when the Temple is standing.');">⁵⁰</span> - Said R'Ashi: Because one can object: As to the point firstling and firstfruits share in common,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore they require the Temple to be in existence before they can be brought. This is not the case with second tithe.');">⁵¹</span> it is that they both require the altar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of firstfruits for the purpose of setting and in the case of firstling for the application of the blood.');">⁵²</span> Now what is [R'Ishmael's] view?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who has no doubt that a firstling is not eaten except when the Temple stands, but who has a doubt concerning the second tithe.');">⁵³</span> Does he hold that with the first consecration<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of Palestine by Joshua.');">⁵⁴</span> he [Joshua] consecrated the land for the time being [as long as it was inhabited by Israel] and also for the future?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even without a Temple, Jerusalem is a holy place.');">⁵⁵</span> Then there should be no difference between firstling and [second] tithe, both being suitable to be brought. And if [R'Ishmael] holds that with the first consecration he [Joshua] consecrated for the time being but not for the future,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And so there is a doubt concerning second tithe.');">⁵⁶</span> why not raise the question<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether in order to bring it the Temple must be in existence.');">⁵⁷</span> even concerning a firstling?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why therefore does he infer the case of the second tithe from firstling?');">⁵⁸</span> - One can maintain that [R'Ishmael] holds that with the first consecration he [Joshua] consecrated the land for the time being but not for the future, but here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where R. Ishmael is sure of the case of firstling.');">⁵⁹</span> he is thinking of a case where e.g. , the blood of the firstling was sprinkled while the Temple was still in existence, and the Temple was then destroyed and the flesh of the firstling still remained. Since therefore if the blood was in existence, it would not be fit to be sprinkled,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since Jerusalem was not holy after Temple times (Rashi) .');">⁶⁰</span> we therefore derive the case of the flesh [of the firstling]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As regards eating it.');">⁶¹</span> from the case of the blood [of the firstling].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And just as the blood cannot be sprinkled, the flesh too cannot be eaten.');">⁶²</span>

Jastrow