זבחים 60:2 — Soncino English Talmud

three elders, and the following is one of them: R. Ishmael said: You might think that a man can take up second tithe to Jerusalem and consume it there now-a-days. and that would be logical: a firstling must be brought to the ‘Place’ , and tithe must be brought to the ‘Place’: as [the law of] firstling operates only whilst 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! Let first-fruits prove it. As for first-fruits, the reason is because they must be placed [before the altar]! Therefore it states, And thither shall ye bring your burnt-offerings. and your tithes . . . and the firstlings of your herd and of your flock: this assimilates tithe to firstling: as [the law of] firstling is valid only whilst the Temple stands, so is tithe valid only whilst the Temple stands. Yet let us revert to the argument and learn it from the common characteristic? — Because that can be refuted: the feature common to both is that each is connected with the altar. What does he hold? If he holds that the first sanctity hallowed it for the nonce and for the future. then even a firstling too [is thus]? 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. Now its flesh is likened to its blood: as its blood requires the altar, so does its flesh require the altar. Then tithe comes and is learnt from a firstling. But can then that which is derived by a hekkesh teach in turn by a hekkesh? — The tithe of corn is merely hullin. 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? — Blood and flesh are the same thing. When Rabin went up, he reported this teaching in R. Jeremiah's presence, whereupon he observed: The Babylonians are fools. Because they dwell in a land of darkness they engage in dark discussions. Have they not heard what was taught: During the dismantling [of the Tabernacle] on their travels, sacrifices became unfit, and zabin and lepers were sent out of their precincts. Whereas another [Baraitha] taught: Sacrifices might be eaten in two places. Surely then, the former refers to sacrifices of higher sanctity, and the latter to sacrifices of lesser sanctity? — Said Rabina: Both refer to sacrifices of lesser sanctity, yet there is no difficulty:^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ

^ᵃnote:V. p. 246, n. 3.
^ᵇnote:Instead of redeeming it.
^ᶜnote: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.
^ᵈnote:The ‘Place’ par excellence — Jerusalem.
^ᵉnote:Hence the law does not operate without a Temple and altar. But that would not apply to tithe.
^ᶠnote: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
^ᵍnote:Hence at this stage there are no grounds for supposing that the law of tithe is valid only when the Temple is standing.
^ʰnote:Deut. XII, 6.
^ⁱnote: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.
^ʲnote: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.
^ᵏnote:When he assumes that the law is certain and obvious in respect of firstling, but not in respect of tithe.
^ˡnote:I.e., that the sanctity of the Temple was for all time, even after its destruction.
^ᵐnote: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.
^ⁿnote:Which no longer needs the altar; nevertheless it may not be eaten.
^ᵒnote: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.
^ᵖnote:In the sense that it may not be eaten when there is no longer an altar.
^ᵠnote:That the same applies to it.
^ʳnote:For notes v. supra 45a.
^ˢnote: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.
^ᵗnote: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.
^ᵘnote:Viz., Abaye's statement that sacrifices become unfit through the altar being damaged, and its inference by R. Jose's exegesis.
^ᵛnote: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.
^ʷnote:They discuss laws without knowing their true meaning or derive them incorrectly.
^ˣnote:When the Tabernacle was dismantled and taken apart, which was when the Israelites were actually travelling.
^ʸnote:The flesh of sacrifices of higher sanctity might not be eaten, even if their blood had been sprinkled before the dismantling.
^ᶻnote: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).
^ᵃᵃnote:(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.
^ᵃᵇnote: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.