(Beraisa - R. Yosi citing R. Yishmael) Suggestion: Perhaps nowadays (after the Churban) we may eat Ma'aser Sheni in Yerushalayim!

Rejection: "Va'Haveisem Shamah... (Masroseichem... u'Vchoros...)" equates Ma'aser and Bechor. Just like Bechor may be eaten only when the Mikdash stands, also Ma'aser.

Question: If the Tana holds that the Kedushah is permanent, also Bechor is permitted today. If he holds that the Kedushah was not permanent, he should be equally unsure about Bechor!

Answer (Ravina): He holds that the Kedushah was not permanent. The case is, the Bechor's blood was thrown before the Churban, and the meat is intact after the Churban. The meat is equated to the blood. Just like the blood requires a Mizbe'ach, also the meat. We learn Ma'aser from Bechor.

107b (R. Yochanan): If one offers Korbanos outside the Mikdash nowadays he is liable, because the first Kedushah was permanent.

(Reish Lakish): He is exempt. The first Kedushah was temporary.

Megilah 10a (Mishnah): Once the Mikdash was built in Yerushalayim, Bamos were forbidden forever. This was the "Nachalah".

Tana'im argue about whether Kedushas Yerushalayim still applies.

(Beraisa #1 - R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi): The Mishnah (Erchin 32a) lists cities that the exiles who returned from Bavel were Mekadesh. The first Kedushah lapsed after the first Churban. (It was not permanent.)

Contradiction (Beraisa #2 - R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi): If you have a tradition that a city had a wall from the days of Yehoshua, all laws of walled cities apply to it, for the Kedushah was permanent.

Resolution: The Tana'im argue about his opinion. Alternatively, the Tana of Beraisa #2 is really R. Eliezer bar Yosi.

(Beraisa - R. Eliezer bar Yosi): "Asher Lo Chomah" has an extra Aleph, to include) even if it does not have a wall now, if it once had one.

Yevamos 82b (Beraisa in Seder Olam): "That your fathers inherited, and you will inherit" - there are two inheritances, but not a third (the second Kedushah never ceased).

(R. Yochanan): R. Yosi taught Seder Olam.

Shevu'os 16a (Rav Huna): The text of the Mishnah (14a) is 'to add onto Yerushalayim or the Azarah, we need a king, a Navi, the Urim v'Tumim... If an addition was made without all this, one who enters there b'Tum'ah is exempt.'

(Rav Nachman): The text is 'if an addition was made without (at least) one of these (he is exempt, for it does not get Kedushah).

(According to Rav Huna, Ezra could not be Mekadesh Bayis Sheni, for they lacked the Urim v'Tumim.) He must hold that Shlomo's Kidush of the Mikdash was permanent. Ezra's actions were only a commemoration of Kidush. Rav Nachman holds that the Kedushah of the first Mikdash had ceased.

Rambam (Hilchos Beis ha'Bechirah 1:3): Once the Mikdash was built in Yerushalayim it was forbidden to build a house for Hash-m for bringing Korbanos anywhere else. The Beis ha'Mikdash for all generations is only in Har ha'Moriyah - it says "Zeh Beis Hash-m" and "Zos Menuchasi Adei Ad".

Rambam (ibid. 6:14,15): Shlomo gave permanent Kedushah to the Azarah and Yerushalayim. Therefore, we may offer Korbanos even when the Bayis is not built, and we may eat Kodshei Kodoshim in the entire Azarah without a surrounding wall. We may eat Kodshim Kalim in Yerushalayim without a wall, for the first Kedushah was permanent. Even though the Kedushah of Eretz Yisrael for Shemitah and Ma'aseros was temporary, the Kedushah of the Azarah and Yerushalayim was permanent, for their Kedushah is the Shechinah, which is not Batel. It says "v'Hashimosi Es Mikdesheichem".

Source (Teshuvas Kol Mevaser 2:10 DH v'Od): R. Acha (Shemos Rabah 2:2 DH Moshe) says that the Mikdash remains in its Kedushah after the Churban, and that Shechinah never left the Western Wall.

Rambam (ibid.): The Mitzvos of Shemitah and Ma'aseros depend on conquering the land, so once the Nochrim took it, the conquest (by Yisrael) was Batel, so it was no longer considered Eretz Yisrael. Ezra was not Mekadesh Eretz Yisrael through conquest, rather, through Chazakah. Therefore, any place where Olei Bavel settled and Ezra was Mekadesh is still Kodesh nowadays, even though the land was taken.

Rebuttal (Ra'avad): The Rambam says his own reasoning without a source. Many Gemaros says that without a Mikdash, we must leave Kodshim to rot. It is clear from Bava Metzia 53b that if the Mechitzos fell, Ma'aser Sheni may not be eaten. We do not distinguish the Kedushah of Eretz Yisrael from that of Yerushalayim.

Radvaz: The Rambam (Pirush ha'Mishnayos Eduyos 8:6) says that all Tana'im agree that Kidush of Bayis Rishon was permanent. They argue only about the rest of Eretz Yisrael. This is like Rav Huna. If the Ra'avad questions the Rambam's reason (the Shechinah is not Batel), this is explicit - "veha'Shimosi Es Mikdesheichem" (even when they are desolate, they are Kodesh - Megilah 28a). Perhaps the Ra'avad asks why the Rambam rules against Rav Nachman.

Kesef Mishneh: The Halachah follows R. Yehoshua against R. Eliezer, and he holds that the Kedushah is permanent. Also, we follow R. Yochanan against Reish Lakish (Zevachim 107b). Also, the Gemara suggested that all agree that the Kedushah is permanent. R. Yehoshua said that the Kedushah of Yerushalayim and the Mikdash is permanent. He did not say so about the Kedushah of Eretz Yisrael. However, I cannot answer for the Gemaros that say without a Mikdash, we must leave Kodshim to rot.

Teshuvas Mishpat Kohen (Inyanei Eretz Yisrael 96 DH Yesod): We follow the Mishnah in Eduyos (brought in Megilah 10a) against all other Mishnayos. Since it is possible to learn that R. Yehoshua and R. Eliezer agree (that the Kedushah was permanent), like Ravina, we do so.

Radvaz: The Rambam holds that if the Mikdash would be standing, one could eat Ma'aser Sheni and Revai even after the wall of Yerushalayim fell. Even though the Kedushah of Yerushalayim is permanent, one may not eat without a Mikdash.

Ra'avad: I say that even R. Yosi, who says that the second Kedushah was permanent (Yevamos 82b) says so only about the rest of Eretz Yisrael, but not about Yerushalayim, for Ezra knew that Hash-m would later make a permanent Kedushah. One who enters there nowadays is not Chayav Kares.

Kesef Mishneh: The Ra'avad gives no source that R. Yosi refers only to the rest of Eretz Yisrael. Why wouldn't Ezra make a permanent Kedushah, to allow Korbanos after the second Churban? The Ra'avad seemed like he was unsure. Why does he exempt from Kares?

Radvaz: Even if Ezra knew that Hash-m will later make a permanent Kedushah, Ezra could have been Mekadesh now, and later Hash-m would add in area and quality of the Kedushah! Further, Rav Huna holds that Ezra was unable to Mekadesh, and Rav Nachman holds that he was Mekadesh! The Ra'avad must hold like Rav Nachman. Ezra was Mekadesh Eretz Yisrael Stam; such Kidush is permanent. He limited the Kedushah of Yerushalayim and the Mikdash to when they stand, to allow Hash-m to be Mekadesh them later!

Question (Tosfos Shavu'os 16a DH Teni): What forced Rav Nachman to change the text? In any case some Stam Mishnayos hold that the first Kedushah was permanent!

R. Shimshon (Shevi'is 6:1 b'Sof): It is not difficult to say that Kedushas ha'Aretz is Batel for Terumah, but Kedushas Mechitzos (of the Mikdash, to Mechayev for Shechutei Chutz) remains. Perhaps we learn from "Asher Lo Chomah" - if it once had a wall, even if now there is no wall. Alternatively, "Zeh Menuchasi Adei Ad" teaches that there is no Heter Bamos after Yerushalayim.

Sefer Yere'im (277 (325 in old edition)): The Halachah follows R. Yosi, who says that Kedushas Eretz Yisrael is permitted. All the more so Kedushas Yerushalayim, which is greater, is permanent. R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi holds that Kedushas ha'Aretz was Batel; we learn from this that Kedushas Yerushalayim was Batel, to be lenient (Shevu'os 16a). All the more so we may learn a stringency, that the opinion that Kedushas ha'Aretz was not Batel says the same about Yerushalayim! Therefore, nowadays one must be careful not to enter Makom ha'Mikdash, since we are Temei'im.

Tosfos (Makos 19a DH v'Iy): The Gemara forbids eating Ma'aser in Yerushalayim after the Churban. We must say that even though Kedushas Mikdash was not permanent, Kedushas ha'Aretz was permanent.

Shulchan Aruch (YD 331:132): Tur (YD 331): Ma'aser Sheni is eaten within the wall of Yerushalayim only when there is a Mikdash. We learn from a Hekesh of Ma'aser to Bechor.

Tur (YD 331): We should be able to eat Ma'aser Sheni in Yerushalayim today. Even though there is no wall, the Kedushah of the city and the Beis ha'Mikdash are not Batel. However, the Hekesh teaches that it can be eaten only when there is a Mizbe'ach.

Magen Avraham (OC 561:2): The Rambam had the text of Tosfos (Makos 19a), that even the one who holds that Kedushas ha'Mikdash was permanent forbids eating Bechor and Ma'aser nowadays. One who enters the Mikdash nowadays is Chayav Kares. Also tthe Agudah says so.

Likutei Halachos (Zevachim p. 66b, and Zevach Todah): Many Rishonim agree with the Rambam; the Ra'avad is a lone opinion. Also, R. Eliezer ben Yakov (Zevachim 62a) permits Hakravah without a Mikdash (for the first Kedushah was permanent). The Halachah always follows him, even in a Beraisa.

Kaf ha'Chayim (8): One may come close to the openings to the Mikdash and enter the Aliyos around the Mikdash.