Zevachim 120

ג' זקנים וזה אחד מהן רבי ישמעאל אומר יכול יעלה אדם מעשר שני לירושלים ויאכלנו בזמן הזה ודין הוא בכור טעון הבאת מקום ומעשר טעון הבאת מקום מה בכור אינו אלא בפני הבית אף מעשר אינו אלא בפני הבית

three elders, and the following is one of them: R'Ishmael said: You might think that a man can take up second tithe<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 246, n. 3.');">¹</span> to Jerusalem and consume it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Instead of redeeming it.');">²</span>

מה לבכור שכן טעון מתן דמים ואימורים לגבי מזבח

there now-a-days.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., after the destruction of the Temple. - He holds that the sanctity of Eretz Israel was not annulled thereby, and so one must still set aside tithes.');">³</span> and that would be logical: a firstling must be brought to the 'Place' ,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The 'Place' par excellence - Jerusalem.');">⁴</span>

ביכורים יוכיחו מה לביכורים שכן טעונין הנחה

and tithe must be brought to the 'Place': as [the law of] firstling operates only whils the Temple stands, so [the law of] tithe is valid only whilst the Temple stands. [No:] as for a firstling, the reason is because its blood and emurim must be presented at the altar!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the law does not operate without a Temple and altar. But that would not apply to tithe.');">⁵</span>

ת"ל (דברים יב, ו) והבאתם שמה עולותיכם וגו' מקיש מעשר לבכור מה בכור אינו אלא בפני הבית אף מעשר אינו אלא בפני הבית

Let first-fruits prove it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which were brought only whilst the Temple stood, as it says, And he shall set it down before the altar of the Lord thy God (Deut. XXVI, 4) which implies that there must be an altar, though there was no blood or emurim to be presented thereat');">⁶</span> As for first-fruits, the reason is because they must be placed [before the altar]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence at this stage there are no grounds for supposing that the law of tithe is valid only when the Temple is standing.');">⁷</span>

וניהדר דינא וניתי במה הצד

Therefore it states, And thither shall ye bring your burnt-offerings. and your tithes.

משום דאיכא למיפרך מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן יש בהן צד מזבח

and the firstlings of your herd and of your flock:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XII, 6.');">⁸</span> this assimilates tithe to firstling: as [the law of] firstling is valid only whilst the Temple stands, so is tithe va only whilst the Temple stands.

מאי קסבר אי קסבר קדושה ראשונה קידשה לשעתה וקידשה לעתיד לבא אפילו בכור נמי ואי קסבר לא קידשה לעתיד לבא אפילו בכור נמי תיבעי

Yet let us revert to the argument and learn it from the common characteristic?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why is the foregoing hekkesh necessary? Though it cannot be learnt from either firstling or first-fruits, it could be learnt from their common feature, which is that both must be brought to Jerusalem and both are in force only as long as the Temple stands. Hence the same applies to second tithe, which shows this feature.');">⁹</span> - Because that can be refuted: the feature common to both is that each is connected with the altar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The blood and emurim of a firstling must be presented at the altar, and first-fruits must be placed before the altar. But tithe is not connected with the altar in any way.');">¹⁰</span>

אמר רבינא לעולם קסבר לא קידשה והכא במאי עסקינן בבכור שנזרק דמו קודם חורבן הבית וחרב הבית ועדיין בשרו קיים

What does he hold?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he assumes that the law is certain and obvious in respect of firstling, but not in respect of tithe.');">¹¹</span> If he holds that the first sanctity hallowed it for the nonce and for the future.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that the sanctity of the Temple was for all time, even after its destruction.');">¹²</span>

ואיתקש בשרו לדמו מה דמו במזבח אף בשרו במזבח ואתי מעשר ויליף מבכור

then even a firstling too [is thus]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi: even a firstling should be brought to Jerusalem and eaten there, for on the view that its sanctity was for all time it was to be offered even after the Temple's destruction.');">¹³</span> While if he holds that it did not hallow it for the future, there should be a question even about a firstling too? - Said Rabina: In truth he holds that it did not hallow it [for all time], but here we discuss a firstling whose blood was sprinkled before the Temple was destroyed, then the Temple was destroyed, and we still have its flesh.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which no longer needs the altar; nevertheless it may not be eaten.');">¹⁴</span>

וכי דבר הלמד בהיקש חוזר ומלמד בהיקש מעשר דגן חולין הוא

Now its flesh is likened to its blood:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 17f: Thou shalt dash their blood against the altar, and shalt make their fat smoke for an offering made by fire...and the flesh of them shall be thine. These, being written together, are assimilated to one another.');">¹⁵</span> as its blood requires the altar, so does its flesh require the altar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the sense that it may not be eaten when there is no longer an altar.');">¹⁶</span>

הניחא למ"ד בתר למד אזלינן אלא למ"ד בתר מלמד אזלינן מאי איכא למימר

Then tithe comes and is learnt from a firstling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the same applies to it.');">¹⁷</span> But can then that which is derived by a hekkesh teach in turn by a hekkesh? - The tithe of corn is merely hullin.

דם ובשר חדא מילתא היא

That is well on the view that the taught is the determining factor; but on the view that the teacher is the determining factor, what can be said?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For notes v. supra 45a.');">¹⁸</span> - Blood and flesh are the same thing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They are both parts of the same offering . Hence, when we say that the flesh requires the altar, just as the blood, this is not regarded as the result of a hekkesh, but as though the Biblical teaching concerning the blood naturally refers to the flesh too.');">¹⁹</span>

כי סליק רבין אמרה לשמעתא קמיה דרבי ירמיה אמר בבלאי טפשאי אמטול דיתבי בארעא חשוכא אמרי שמעתא דמחשכא לא שמיע להו הא דתניא בשעת סילוק מסעות קדשים נפסלין וזבים ומצורעים משתלחים חוץ למחיצה

When Rabin went up,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To Palestine. Rabin and R. Dimi were two Rabbis who travelled backwards and forwards between Palestine and Babylon, acting as intellectual links between the academies of both.');">²⁰</span> he reported this teaching<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., Abaye's statement that sacrifices become unfit through the altar being damaged, and its inference by R. Jose's exegesis.');">²¹</span>

ותניא אידך בשני מקומות קדשים נאכלים מאי לאו הא בקדשי קדשים הא בקדשים קלים

in R'Jeremiah's presence, whereupon he observed: The Babylonians are fools. Because they dwell in a land of darkness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Babylonia is possibly so called on account of the Parsees (fireworshippers) , who forbade the Jews to have any light in their dwellings on their (the Parsees') festivals.');">²²</span>

אמר רבינא אידי ואידי בקדשים קלים ולא קשיא

they engage in dark discussions.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They discuss laws without knowing their true meaning or derive them incorrectly.');">²³</span> Have they not heard what was taught: During the dismantling [of the Tabernacle] on their travels,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the Tabernacle was dismantled and taken apart, which was when the Israelites were actually travelling.');">²⁴</span> sacrifices became unfit,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The flesh of sacrifices of higher sanctity might not be eaten, even if their blood had been sprinkled before the dismantling.');">²⁵</span> and zabin and lepers were sent out of their precincts.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The precincts which were permitted to them whilst the Israelites were encamped. Thus zabin were sent out of the Levitical camp, and lepers out of the camp of the Israelites (v. p. 276. n. 6) .');">²⁶</span> Whereas another [Baraitha] taught: Sacrifices might be eaten in two places.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' (i) Within their normally permitted boundaries, when the Tabernacle was up; and (ii) in any place, when they were actually travelling. This contradicts the former teaching.');">²⁷</span> Surely then, the former refers to sacrifices of higher sanctity, and the latter to sacrifices of lesser sanctity?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The latter may be eaten even when the Tabernacle is dismantled. At that time there would be no altar either, and that is certainly no better than when the altar stands but is damaged. This proves that sacrifices of lesser sanctity may be eaten when the altar is damaged, and thus contradicts Abaye Therefore R. Jeremiah called Abaye's teaching 'dark', i.e., incorrect.');">²⁸</span> - Said Rabina: Both refer to sacrifices of lesser sanctity, yet there is no difficulty: