Zevachim

three elders, and the following is one of them: R. Ishmael said: You might think that a man can take up second tithe1 to Jerusalem and consume it2 there now-a-days.3 and that would be logical: a firstling must be brought to the ‘Place’ ,4 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!5 Let first-fruits prove it.6 As for first-fruits, the reason is because they must be placed [before the altar]!7 Therefore it states, And thither shall ye bring your burnt-offerings. and your tithes . . . and the firstlings of your herd and of your flock:8 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?9 — Because that can be refuted: the feature common to both is that each is connected with the altar. 10 What does he hold?11 If he holds that the first sanctity hallowed it for the nonce and for the future.12 then even a firstling too [is thus]?13 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.14 Now its flesh is likened to its blood:15 as its blood requires the altar, so does its flesh require the altar.16 Then tithe comes and is learnt from a firstling.17 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?18 — Blood and flesh are the same thing.19 When Rabin went up,20 he reported this teaching21 in R. Jeremiah's presence, whereupon he observed: The Babylonians are fools. Because they dwell in a land of darkness22 they engage in dark discussions.23 Have they not heard what was taught: During the dismantling [of the Tabernacle] on their travels,24 sacrifices became unfit,25 and zabin and lepers were sent out of their precincts.26 Whereas another [Baraitha] taught: Sacrifices might be eaten in two places.27 Surely then, the former refers to sacrifices of higher sanctity, and the latter to sacrifices of lesser sanctity?28 — Said Rabina: Both refer to sacrifices of lesser sanctity, yet there is no difficulty: one must still set aside tithes. God (Deut. XXVI, 4) which implies that there must be an altar, though there was no blood or emurim to be presented thereat 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. But tithe is not connected with the altar in any way. time it was to be offered even after the Temple's destruction. by fire...and the flesh of them shall be thine. These, being written together, are assimilated to one another. is not regarded as the result of a hekkesh, but as though the Biblical teaching concerning the blood naturally refers to the flesh too. Babylon, acting as intellectual links between the academies of both. exegesis. in their dwellings on their (the Parsees’) festivals. dismantling. Levitical camp, and lepers out of the camp of the Israelites (v. p. 276. n. 6). actually travelling. This contradicts the former teaching. 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.