4) click for question
(a) Rebbi Yishmael thought that it might be permitted to bring Ma'aser Sheini to Yerushalayim nowadays, and eat it there. It would be necessary to separate Ma'aser nowadays - because he clearly holds that the Kedushah of Eretz Yisrael did not become Bateil with the Churban.
(b) He learns from B'chor (with a 'Binyan Av') - that just as B'chor requires the Mizbe'ach, so too, does Ma'aser.
(c) He refute this however, on the grounds that one cannot learn Ma'aser Sheini from B'chor - which requires Matan Damim ve'Eimurim on the Mizbe'ach' (which Ma'aser does not).
(d) So he tries to learn from Bikurim - which does not require Matan Damim ve'Eimurim on the Mizbe'ach.
(e) He queries this Limud too however - on the grounds that Bikurim require placing beside the Mizbe'ach (which Ma'aser does not).
5) click for question
(a) So Rebbi Yishmael learns from the Pasuk "Va'haveisem Shamah ... ve'es Ma'asroseichem ... u'Vechoros Bekarchem ... " - where Ma'aser is compared to B'chor with a Hekesh (and we have a principle 'Ein Mashivin al ha'Hekesh').
(b) Rebbi Yishmael did not even attempt to learn Ma'aser from a 'Mah ha'Tzad' from B'chor and Bikurim - since one would immediately refute such a Limud with the Pircha that whereas they both require the Mizbe'ach in one way or another, Ma'aser Sheini does not.
6) click for question
(a) The problem with Rebbi Yishmael's Limud of Bechor to Ma'aser, assuming that he holds 'Kedushah Rishonah Kidshah le'Sha'atah ...
1. ... ve'Kidshah le'Asid Lavo' (meaning the Kedushah of the Beis-Hamikdash) is - then why should one not be able to bring even a B'chor nowadays?
2. ... ve'Lo Kidshah le'Asid Lavo' is - what then makes B'chor more obvious than Ma'aser.
(b) In the latter case, we would justify bringing a B'chor after the Churban - in a case where the blood was sprinkled and the Eimurim sacrificed before the Churban, and the Kohen then wanted to eat the Basar in Yerushalayim.
(c) If on the other hand, Rebbi Yishmael were to hold 'Lo Kidshah le'Asid Lavo', one might still be able to eat either Ma'aser or Bechor even in Yerushalayim - on the assumption that Kodshim Kalim do not require the Mizbe'ach ...
(d) ... and the She'eilah is - whether Yerushalayim is called 'Lifnei Hashem' even when there is no Mizbe'ach, or not.
7) click for question
(a) Ravina adopts the latter side of the She'eilah, and Rebbi Yishmael then learns from the Pasuk "ve'es Damam Tizrok ... u'Vesaram Yih'yeh lach" - that one may only eat the Basar when the blood can be sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach.
(b) The problem with learning Basar from Dam and Ma'aser from B'chor is - that it contravenes the principle "Ein Lemeidin Hekesh min ha'Hekesh be'Kodshim' (as we have already learned).
(c) We refute the answer that Ma'aser Dagan is considered Chulin - by referring to those who go after the Melamed (and not the Lameid), which is Kodshim.
(d) We ultimately answer the Kashya - that Dam and Basar are considered one entity (and the Hekesh is merely a 'Giluy Milsa' [an indication], and not a real Limud).
8) click for question
(a) When Ravin arrived in Eretz Yisrael and told Rebbi Yirmiyah Abaye's Chidush invalidating Kodshim Kalim when the Mizbe'ach becomes chipped and the proof from Rebbi Yossi's statement, the latter commented - by referring to 'those Babylonian fools, who make 'dark (unenlightened) statements, because they live in a dark country (since Bavel is very low, as Rashi explains in No'ach), and surrounded by mountains.
(b) The Beraisa he cites discusses the moving of the camp in the desert. The Tana rules that ...
1. ... (Kodshei) Kodshim - become Pasul, and ...
2. ... Zavin and Metzora'im - must leave their respective camps (Metzora'im, even Machaneh Yisrael, and Zavin, only Machaneh Leviyah).
(c) We know that the traveling Ohel Mo'ed does not lose its status - because the Machaneh Leviyah, which the Zav is obligated to leave, only has the status of Machneh Leviyah on account of the Ohel Mo'ed.
(d) Consequently, the Kodshei Kodshim must be Pasul - because the Mizbe'ach is not standing in its place.
9) click for question
(a) A second Beraisa adds that Kodshim can be eaten in two places - one, in their regular location when Yisrael is still encamped (Kodshei Kodshim in the Azarah and Kodshim Kalim in Machaneh Yisrael), the other, when Yisrael are traveling.
(b) The two Beraisos appear to clash - since the first Beraisa forbids Kodshim to be eaten whilst Machaneh Yisrael are traveling, whereas the second Beraisa permits it.
(c) Rebbi Yirmiyah reconciles them - by establishing the first Beraisa by Kodshei Kodshim, and the second, by Kodshim Kalim, a proof that Kodshim Kalim may be eaten even when the Mizbe'ach is not standing (a Kashya on Abaye).
Index to Review Questions and Answers
for Maseches Zevachim
Homepage for Maseches Zevachim