Question: How may we offer there b'Tum'ah? Chachamim decreed Tum'ah on Chutz la'Aretz!

Answer: Perhaps they did not decree regarding this, since mid'Oraisa one may offer.

Question #1 (R. Chayim): How could he say it initially? Did he not know the Mishnah?! The Mishnayos were fluent in everyone's mouth!

Question #2: Since Tana'im argue about this, why did he retract? He should say "I hold like the one who says that it was not Mekudash"!

Answer (R. Chaim): All agree that once they came to Yerushalayim, the Bamos were forbidden, and there was never a Heter again;

The Tana'im argue about the following. The one who says that it was not Mekudash holds that one may not offer nowadays even in the place of the Mizbe'ach;

The one who says that it was Mekudash holds that one may offer [nowadays] in the place of the Mizbe'ach, but not on a Bamah. (Maharsha - Tosfos did not answer Question #1. Perhaps he did not need to, for we can say that initially, R. Yitzchak thought that Tana'im argue about this (whether Bamos became permitted after Churban Yerushalayim, but later retracted).

Question #1 (R. Tam): Why don't we bring a proof that R. Eliezer holds in Chagigah (3b) that Lo Kidshah l'Asid Lavo?

It says there an episode with R. Yosi ben Dormaskis and concludes that R. Eliezer said "I received from R. Yochanan ben Zakai that [in] Amon and Mo'av [we] tithe Ma'aser Oni in Shevi'is;

The reason is because Olei (the Yisre'elim who came to Eretz Yisrael after leaving) Mitzrayim conquered many cities, and Olei Bavel did not conquer them, and Kedushah Rishonah Kidshah l'Sha'asah v'Lo Kidshah l'Asid Lavo.

Answer (R. Tam): There, the Gemara gave the reason. R. Eliezer did not say so.

Proof: In the Mishnah in Yadaim (4:3) R. Eliezer's words are taught, and this [reason] is not taught.

Explanation: The Gemara means as follows. Why do they tithe [in Shevi'is]? It is because we find like this regarding cities of Yisrael that Olei Bavel were not Mekadesh, according to the opinion that Lo Kidshah;

It was in order that poor Yisre'elim can rely on them in Shevi'is. (Shemitah will not apply there, so they can work the land.)

All the more so Amon and Mo'av, which are Chutz la'Aretz, Olei Bavel were not Mekadesh them, according to the opinion that Lo Kidshah, and they left them for Aniyim;

We do not discuss [the parts of] Amon and Mo'av that became Tahor through Sichon [and Og. The Torah forbids Yisrael to take land from Amon and Mo'av, but we may take from what others, e.g. Sichon and Og, conquered from them];

Rather, we discuss those [parts] that Olei Mitzrayim left and did not conquer.

Support: Maseches Yadayim discusses Amon and Mo'av together with Bavel and Mitzrayim, which are Chutz la'Aretz.

Implied question: Bava Basra 38a says that there are three lands regarding Chazakah (being believed to say "I lost my purchase document" after using land for three years without any protests) - Yehudah, Ever ha'Yarden and Galil;

Inference: Amon and Mo'av, which are in Ever ha'Yarden, were part of Eretz Yisrael!

Answer: That refers to [the parts of] Amon and Mo'av that became Tahor through Sichon [and Og].

Question #2 (R. Tam) Citation (Beitzah 5b, Rosh Hashanah 31b): R. Eliezer had Kerem Revai and he wanted to be Mafkir it for Aniyim.

Inference: He holds that Kidshah l'Asid Lavo. Since he did not want to toil to bring it to Yerushalayim, he wanted to be Mafkir it for Aniyim, so they will bring it to Yerushalayim and eat it there;

If he held that Lo Kidshah, and [nowadays Yerushalayim is not Kadosh for eating Revai, so] he needed to redeem it like that (Revai) outside the wall [of Yerushalayim], which one must redeem, why did he need to bring it to Yerushalayim? (Also here, R. Tam asks why our Sugya did not resolve R. Eliezer' opinion from there - Zera Yitzchak.)

Strengthening of question: Also, how would it benefit the Aniyim, since they must redeem it?

Answer: Since initially, one needed to take Kerem Revai to Yerushalayim, R. Eliezer wanted to do so, for anything forbidden through a Minyan (vote of Chachamim) needs another Minyan to permit it. (Maharsha - Chachamim enacted that within one day's journey of Yerushalayim, one may not redeem Revai. Rather, he takes it to Yerushalayim, so the markets will be full of Peros);

This [episode with R. Eliezer] is brought regarding this [enactment] in Beitzah (5b). The Aniyim profit, for one may redeem [any amount] on one Perutah, like Shmuel taught.

Implied question: Shmuel said that this works only b'Di'eved, i.e. if one redeemed [on a Perutah, it is redeemed. One may not do so l'Chatchilah!]

Answer: That is only when the Mikdash stands, but not nowadays [when we cannot offer or eat anything with Kedushah. It is all left to die or rot.] It is even l'Chatchilah nowadays.

Support: The She'altos of Rav Achai says so (Kedoshim 100).

Pesak: One blesses on redemption before doing it. He burns the redemption money, or casts it to the river.

Question: Why do we bring this Beraisa, which proves only that Kedushah Rishonah was not Batel?

There is a Tana (Yevamos 82b) who holds that there is a first and second Kedushah, but not a third, for the last (second) was not Batel (it was permanent)!

The Kedushah of [Beis] Chonyo was after the second Kedushah!

Answer: Even according to the opinion that the last Kedushah was not Batel, that is only regarding Terumah nowadays. Regarding everything else, it was surely Batel.

Question: They still speak Arame'ic in Bavel!

Answer: The Gemara discusses the royal language that kings use. Other people do not know it.

The text: This is the correct text. It does not say Efron, for "Shem Resha'im Yirkav", and we do not use their names.