OPINIONS: Rebbi Elazar says that if the Mizbe'ach becomes chipped, the leftovers of a Korban Minchah cannot be eaten. The Gemara extends this to other Korbanos as well. This is similar to the Halachah discussed earlier in the Gemara (59a), that any Korban slaughtered while the Mizbe'ach is missing part of its mass (see Chulin 18a for a discussion regarding the amount, and material, of the Mizbe'ach to which this refers) is Pasul if its Zerikas ha'Dam had not yet been performed. It is clear that the Gemara earlier means that all of the Korbanos at that time become permanently Pasul. Is this also the law regarding the leftovers of a Korban Minchah, or will fixing the Mizbe'ach allow them to be eaten?

(a) REBBI AKIVA EIGER in GILYON HA'SHAS refers us to the end of TOSFOS in Bava Metzia (53b, DH Lo Plug). Tosfos there rules that when the Mizbe'ach is fixed, the remnants of the Minchah may be eaten. The MAHARI KURKUS writes that the RAMBAM is also of this opinion (in Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 3:25). The Rambam earlier (3:22) writes the Halachah that all Korbanos, which did not have their Zerikas ha'Dam performed yet, are Pasul if the Mizbe'ach is chipped. The Rambam here quotes the Gemara and says that, in general, eating Kodshim is forbidden until the Mizbe'ach is rebuilt. The Mahari Kurkus says that this clearly implies that when the Mizbe'ach is rebuilt, people may eat their Korbanos.

(b) The ZEVACH TODAH and KEREN ORAH point out that Tosfos later (61b, DH Af Al Pi) seems to maintain that these Korbanos remain Pasul even after the Mizbe'ach is fixed. Tosfos says that when the Mizbe'ach is chipped, once a Korban is unable to be eaten it remains prohibited to be eaten. The Zevach Todah and Keren Orah write that Tosfos clearly argues with the opinions mentioned above.

The SEFER EIZEHU MEKOMAN points out that Rebbi Akiva Eiger apparently understands that Tosfos later does not argue with Tosfos in Bava Metzia, because otherwise he would have referred us to Tosfos here in Zevachim as well (see, however, Gilyon ha'Shas to 61a, DH v'Gam). This also seems to be the opinion of the ARUCH LA'NER in Makos (19a, DH Aval). He writes that "everyone agrees" that Korbanos which already had their Zerikah performed do not become Pasul just because the Mizbe'ach becomes chipped. He adds that this is clearly stated by the Rambam (loc. cit.) and Tosfos in Bava Metzia, and he makes no mention of the Tosfos cited by the Zevach Todah and Keren Orah. It seems that they had a different explanation of that Tosfos. (See TAHARAS HA'KODESH to Tosfos 61b.) (Y. MONTROSE)



OPINIONS: The Gemara discusses Rebbi Yishmael's ruling that Ma'aser Sheni is not brought to Yerushalayim and eaten there when the Beis ha'Mikdash is not standing. He learns this from the verse, "And you will bring there your Olos, and your Zevachim, and your Ma'aseros, and the firstborn of your cattle and sheep" (Devarim 12:6). The verse compares Ma'aser to Bechor, teaching that just as the requirement to bring a Bechor to Yerushalayim applies only when it is brought in front of the Beis ha'Mikdash, the requirement to bring Ma'aser to Yerushalayim applies only when the Beis ha'Mikdash is standing.

The Gemara analyzes the logic of Rebbi Yishmael's ruling. If he maintains that the Kedushah of Yerushalayim remains after the Beis ha'Mikdash is no longer standing, then even a Bechor should be able to be brought to Yerushalayim when there is no Beis ha'Mikdash. RASHI (DH Afilu Bechor Nami) quotes the Gemara in Megilah (10a) that teaches that the opinion which maintains that the Kedushah is still present also maintains that one may still bring (in theory) Korbanos today, and thus one should also be able to bring a Bechor. On the other hand, if Rebbi Yishmael maintains that the Kedushah is no longer present, then the Gemara should ask what the Halachah is in a case in which the Avodos of a Bechor were performed in the Beis ha'Mikdash, and then the Beis ha'Mikdash was destroyed before the meat of the Bechor was eaten. May the meat be eaten now that there is no Beis ha'Mikdash?

Ravina answers that Rebbi Yishmael maintains that the Kedushah was not permanent. According to Rebbi Yishmael, the meat of the Bechor may not be eaten because of a different set of verses (Bamidbar 18:17-8). Based on this Halachah regarding Bechor, Rebbi Yishmael derives from the verse in Devarim (12:6) that Ma'aser also may no longer be eaten.

As Rashi points out earlier (DH Yachol), Rebbi Yishmael maintains that the Kedushah of Eretz Yisrael was permanent, and that is why the obligation to separate Ma'aser today is mid'Oraisa, and thus one might have thought that he must bring Ma'aser Sheni to Yerushalayim even when the Beis ha'Mikdash is not standing. Nevertheless, the Gemara asks whether he maintains that the Kedushah of Yerushalayim and the Beis ha'Mikdash was permanent. This shows that the two Kedushos -- that of Eretz Yisrael and that of Yerushalayim -- are independent of each other. TOSFOS (DH Mai) brings support for this point from the Gemara later (112b) that states that when the Mishkan in Shilo was destroyed, the Kedushah of Eretz Yisrael remained. It is evident from there that the Kedushah of Eretz Yisrael and the Kedushah of the Beis ha'Mikdash (or Mishkan) are independent of each other.

What logic is there to separate the two Kedushos? Why should the Kedushah of Yerushalayim and the Beis ha'Mikdash remain when the Kedushah of Eretz Yisrael is no longer present?

(a) TOSFOS in Yevamos (82b, DH Yerushah) explains that, logically, both Kedushos should not be present today. However, the verse, "Asher Lo Chomah" (Vayikra 25:30), teaches that even when the wall of a fortified city is no longer standing, the Halachos of "Batei Arei Chomah" still apply to that city (see Megilah 10b). Rashi in Megilah there (DH Af Al Pi) explains that this Derashah follows the opinion that the original Kedushah of Yerushalayim and the Beis ha'Mikdash (which depends upon the walls standing) still applies even after the walls were destroyed (and even when the Kedushah of Eretz Yisrael is no longer present).

(b) Alternatively, Tosfos explains that Yerushalayim is called a Nachalah, an "inheritance," such as in the verse which discusses the Jewish people coming to their "Nachalah" (Devarim 12:9; see Megilah 10a). Tosfos suggests that the word "inheritance" denotes permanence -- a permanent inheritance. The verse of "Nachalah" is written with regard to Korbanos. This indicates that Yerushalayim is a permanent "Nachalah" with regard to bringing Korbanos there, in contrast to the general Kedushah of Eretz Yisrael which is not permanent.

(c) In a similar vein, Tosfos suggests that the source for the permanence of the Kedushah of Yerushalayim is the verse, "Zos Menuchasi Adei Ad" -- "This is My resting place forever" (Tehilim 132:13). (See also RASH, end of Shevi'is 6:1.)

(d) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Beis ha'Bechirah 6:16) rules that Kedushah Rishonah remains with regard to all Halachos that are associated with Yerushalayim and the Beis ha'Mikdash. However, concerning all matters that are not associated with Kedushas Yerushalayim and Kedushas ha'Bayis, but with Kedushas ha'Aretz (such as Terumah, Ma'aser, Chalah, Orlah, Leket, Shemitah and Yovel, and Bikurim), the Kedushah no longer remains. The Rambam explains that the reason for this difference is that the Kedushah of Yerushalayim depends on the Shechinah dwelling there; the Shechinah does not disappear when Yerushalayim is in ruins. As the Chachamim (Megilah 28a) explain, when the verse says, "v'Hashimosi Es Mikdasheichem" -- "and I will make your holy places desolate" (Vayikra 26:31), it means that although they will become desolate, they will remain "holy places," with their Kedushah. (Y. MONTROSE; see also Insights to Megilah 10:1 and Shevuos 16:1.)