Zevachim 60b — the Talmud in English

Abaye said: It is derived

lesser sanctity offerings

from the exposition of Rabbi Yosei, as it was taught: Rabbi Yosei says: Three things

because of ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact folio location")

three elders, and this is one of them: Rabbi Yishmael says: Could a person bring second tithe to Jerusalem and eat it

there without redemption

at the present time

when the Temple does not exist? For concerning eating second tithe it is stated, “before the Lord your God,” and it is necessary for him to inquire whether, when the Temple is destroyed, it is also considered “before the Lord your God.” And he holds that the sanctity of the Land was not nullified and that the obligation of separating second tithe is from the Torah. And concerning this Rabbi Yishmael says:

And it is a logical inference

that it is impossible to eat second tithe without redemption when the Temple does not exist, for it is comparable to the firstborn:

The firstborn requires being brought to the designated place, and second tithe

also

requires being brought to the designated place,

and we derive the laws of second tithe from the laws of the firstborn:

Just as the firstborn is not

eaten

except in the presence of the Temple, so second tithe is not

eaten

except in the presence of the Temple.

And it is possible to refute this: It is impossible to derive second tithe from the firstborn, for

what is so with the firstborn? It requires the placing of blood and sacrificial portions upon the altar,

and therefore it is only in the presence of the Temple and when the altar is intact.

It is possible to say:

First fruits prove it,

for they do not involve the placing of blood or the placing of sacrificial portions upon the altar, and nevertheless they require the Temple, as it is stated, “and you shall place it before the altar”; so too, second tithe.

It is possible to refute this, for it is impossible to derive second tithe from first fruits, for

what is so with first fruits? They require placing

beside the altar, and therefore they are only in the presence of the Temple, unlike second tithe.

The verse comes to teach

to derive that eating second tithe without redemption in Jerusalem applies only in the presence of the Temple, as it is stated:

“And you shall bring there your burnt offerings

and your sacrifices and your tithes

and so on”; it juxtaposes second tithe to the firstborn: Just as the firstborn is not

eaten

except in the presence of the Temple, so second

tithe

is not

eaten

except in the presence of the Temple.

And we raise an objection: Why does he need to derive from a verse to juxtapose the firstborn to second tithe?

And let us return to the logical inference and bring it by the common side

of the firstborn and first fruits: When we wished to learn from the firstborn, we refuted, “What is so with the firstborn? It requires the placing of blood and sacrificial portions,” and concerning this we would answer, “First fruits prove it.” And when we refute, “What is so with first fruits? They require placing,” let us say, “The firstborn proves it,” and the logical inference returns to teach concerning second tithe!?

And we answer: We do not derive by the common side

because it is possible to refute: What is so with the common side that they possess

in the firstborn and in first fruits?

They have a side involving the altar,

this one for the placing of blood and that one for placing, and therefore we need to derive it from a verse.

And we refute:

What does

Rabbi Yishmael

hold? If he holds that the first sanctity

of the Temple

sanctified for its time and sanctified for the future,

and the sanctity was not nullified when the Temple was destroyed, and they offer upon the altar even when there is no Temple, if so,

even the firstborn also

should be offered and eaten when there is no Temple; and why did he establish as obvious for him that the firstborn cannot be offered at the present time more than second tithe? And

if he holds

that the first sanctity of the Temple sanctified for its time and

did not sanctify for the future,

and therefore it is necessary for him to inquire whether it is called “before the Lord” when the Temple is destroyed—for although the sanctity of the Temple does not remain, nevertheless it is possible that the sanctity of Jerusalem still stands—

even concerning the firstborn also it should be inquired,

when its blood was sprinkled and its sacrificial portions were burned before the destruction, and its flesh remains: What is the law as to eating its flesh after the destruction, in Jerusalem?

Ravina said: Actually, he holds

that this tanna holds that the first sanctity

did not sanctify

for the future,

and here, with what are we dealing? With a firstborn whose blood was sprinkled

and whose sacrificial portions were burned

before the destruction of the Temple, and the Temple was destroyed while its flesh still existed.

And the reason that we do not inquire concerning the firstborn in such a case, but the tanna establishes it as obvious that the firstborn may not be eaten, is that this tanna holds:

And its flesh was juxtaposed to its blood

and he derives that at the time when you are fit to sprinkle the blood, you eat the flesh, as it is stated: “And you shall sprinkle their blood and burn their fat, and their flesh shall be yours”:

Just as its blood is upon the altar, so its flesh is upon the altar;

for its flesh, too, may be eaten only when there is an altar.

And it comes

the eating of

second tithe and derives it from

the eating of

the firstborn,

for second tithe, too, may be eaten only when the altar exists and is intact.

And we ask:

Is it so that a matter learned by a juxtaposition returns and teaches by a juxtaposition?

And how do we derive the eating of second tithe from the eating of the firstborn by a juxtaposition, when the eating of the firstborn itself we derive by a juxtaposition from the sprinkling of its blood?

And we answer:

Second tithe of grain is non-sacred,

and this rule—that a matter learned by a juxtaposition does not return and teach by a juxtaposition—applies only to offerings, and not to non-sacred matter.

And we refute:

This works according to the one who says: We follow the subject learned,

and since the subject learned is non-sacred matter, we can properly derive it from the juxtaposition.

But according to the one who says: We follow the source teaching,

and when the source teaching is offerings, if it itself was learned by a juxtaposition, it does not return and teach even concerning non-sacred matter,

what is there to say?

How do we derive second tithe from the firstborn?

And we answer: This authority holds that

blood and flesh are one matter,

and this rule—that every matter learned by a juxtaposition does not return and teach by a juxtaposition—does not apply here, for the derivation of the blood from the flesh is not in the category of a juxtaposition; they are one matter.

When Ravin went up, he stated Abaye’s teaching

that lesser sanctity offerings may not be eaten when the altar is defective, and that it is derived from Rabbi Yosei’s exposition,

before Rabbi Yirmeya.

Rabbi Yirmeya said:

Rabbi Yirmeya:

Babylonians,

those who sit in the land of Babylonia,

fools! Because

because

you sit in a dark land,

Babylonia is deep and dark,

you state dark teachings,

when they do not know the reason for a matter, they fabricate from their hearts a reason that is not [correct].

It was not heard by them,

by the people of Babylonia,

that which was taught:

And from this beraita they could have learned that concerning all lesser sanctity offerings, we do not invalidate them when the altar is damaged. For it was taught:

At the time of the dismantling of the journeys,

when they dismantled the altars during the journeys in the wilderness,

offerings become disqualified

because the altar was removed,

and those with flux

who are forbidden to enter the Levite camp,

and lepers,

who are forbidden to enter the Israelite camp,

are sent outside the partition 45.

A person with a flux is sent outside the Levite camp of the bearers of the Ark, for the sanctity of the camps was not nullified during the journeys; and a leper is sent outside the camps of the tribes, which are the Israelite camp. And from the fact that a person with a flux is sent outside the Levite camp, it is proven that the sanctity of the camps was not nullified during the journeys. And necessarily, offerings become disqualified not because they became disqualified by going outside, for they are still within the partitions, and the law of the partitions remains in its sanctity, but because the altar was removed.

And it was taught in another beraita: In two places offerings are eaten,

both when the Tabernacle encamped and when the Tabernacle journeyed, the offerings are eaten in their place; and the words of this beraita contradict that which was taught in the earlier beraita, that the offerings become disqualified.

Is it not

possible to reconcile the contradiction between the laws in the beraitot as follows:

this

that was taught, that offerings become disqualified,

concerns most sacred offerings; this

that was taught, that offerings are eaten,

concerns lesser sanctity offerings?

And it is proven that it is not as Abaye said, that lesser sanctity offerings also become disqualified. And although Abaye proved that lesser sanctity offerings are disqualified from that which was taught, that Rabbi Yishmael says that eating the firstborn, which is a lesser sanctity offering, is disqualified when the altar is damaged, Rabbi Yirmeya holds that specifically the firstborn, concerning which Scripture explicitly revealed that its eating is disqualified at the time of damage to the altar, but we do not derive from the firstborn concerning the other lesser sanctity offerings.

Ravina said: Both this and that

both the beraita in which the offerings become disqualified and that which was taught in the beraita in which the offerings are eaten deal

with lesser sanctity offerings,

and in accordance with Abaye, that all lesser sanctity offerings become disqualified when the altar is defective or removed,

and it is not difficult

to reconcile the beraitot with one another.