Explanation: Since the Kedushah was not permanent, it should be eaten in all cities of Yisrael, like the Mishnah teaches below (112b);

Why must we make a Hekesh to Bechor - just like Bechor, one does not bring it up, also Ma'aser one does not bring up?

Ravina answered that really, he holds that the Kedushah was permanent. We do not discuss the obligation to bring it up, rather, whether or not one may eat it nowadays;

We learn eating Ma'aser from eating Bechor. Just like a Mizbe'ach is needed to eat Bechor, because its meat is equated to the blood, also eating Ma'aser needs a Mizbe'ach, and no Ma'aser may be eaten nowadays.

Alternative text: Some texts say "if the Kedushah was not permanent, also Ma'aser no." I.e. also Ma'aser may not be eaten. I.e. since you asked about Ma'aser nowadays, whether it needs to be brought to the place, what do you ask about?

If it grew after the Churban, perhaps it was never obligated at all in Ma'aser, since the Kedushah was not permanent;

And even if it was obligated in Ma'aser, e.g. in Nov and Giv'on, in any case obviously it is eaten in all cities of Yisrael according to the text below, like I explained!

Rather, he asked about what grew Bifnei ha'Bayis, and the Bayis was destroyed. Obviously it is not eaten!

Ravina said that really, he holds that the Kedushah was permanent. We discuss a Bechor whose blood was thrown before Churban ha'Bayis. The Bayis was destroyed, and the meat is intact, and its meat is equated to its blood.

Question: It says "v'Es Damam Tizrok v'Es Chelbam Taktir" - in this verse [its meat] is Hukash (equated) to Haktaras Chelev;

Note: It seems that blood is equated to Chelev. However, if so how can we explain Tosfos' words below "if we can make a Hekesh to be lenient or stringent, we make it stringently, and equate its meat to its blood"?! Rather, meat is equated to Haktaras Chelev. R. Yosef Engel edits the text to include "u'Vsaram Yihyeh Lach", which is the beginning of the next verse. Technically, this is Semichus. Hekesh is only within one verse.

And we said above (59a) that if the Mizbe'ach was dislocated, we may burn Ketores in its place, and the same applies to Eimurim (which includes Chelev)!

Answer: If we can make a Hekesh to be lenient or stringent, we make it stringently, and equate its meat to its blood (to require a Mizbe'ach. We do not equate meat to Eimurim, to permit without a Mizbe'ach.)

Note: There must be an absolute source to forbid blood when the Mizbe'ach is not in its place. (If not, the above verse should equate blood to Chelev, to permit without a Mizbe'ach!) If so, we should forbid Haktaras Chelev without a Mitzvah, from the Hekesh to blood, rather than permitting from a Binyan Av from Ketores! This requires investigation - PF.

Consequence: Now we learn from this Drashah that all Kodshim, if the Mizbe'ach was blemished, they are not eaten.

Question #1: According to this text that says "the Kedushah was permanent" (regarding R. Yosi's teaching in the name of R. Yishmael), R. Yishmael contradicts himself! Below (119a), a Beraisa teaches that R. Yishmael says that both of these, i.e. "Menuchah" and "Nachalah", refer to Shilo;

Rashi explained that he holds that Yerushalayim itself, its Kedushah was not permanent, and there is a Heter after it, since it is not called Nachalah, like it says in Megilah (10a) "I heard that we may offer in Beis Chonyo nowadays", and we establish it like R. Yishmael.

Remark: [Rashi] erred about this. The teaching in Megilah is R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi, and the teaching below is [Stam R. Yishmael, i.e.] R. Yishmael ben Elisha, who argues with R. Akiva.

Summation of question: However, in any case you are forced to say that [R. Yishmael] holds that the Kedushah was not permanent, since he does not call [Yerushalayim] "Nachalah"!

Question #2: Since [R. Yishmael] establishes "Nachalah" to refer to Shilo, if so what is his source that there is no Heter after Yerushalayim?

Answer #1: Perhaps he learns from another verse.

Answer #2 (R. Chaim): R. Yishmael holds that the Kedushah was permanent. He said that both of these refer to Shilo to teach that there is no Heter after Shilo, unlike the opinion that there is a Heter after it;

This is because [the other opinion] expounds "Menuchah" - this is Shilo. "Nachalah" - this is Yerushalayim. Since [the Torah] divided them, he expounds to give to a Heter in between them;

[R. Yishmael] argues with our Mishnah, which taught "Shilo has a Heter after it", for our Mishnah (112b) taught "when they came to Nov and Giv'on [Bamos were permitted]."

Rebuttal: Verses prove that in Nov and Giv'on, Bamos were permitted regarding Shmuel "v'Hu Yevarech Es ha'Zevach", and also the verse calls it a Bamah!

However, after Yerushalayim all agree that Bamos were not permitted. Even the one who says that the Kedushah was not permanent can hold that there is no Heter after [Yerushalayim].

Support: It connotes like this in Megilah (10a). R. Yitzchak said "I heard that we may offer in Beis Chonyo nowadays", and it says that he retracted due to the Mishnah "there is no Heter after Yerushalayim";

Question: Why did he retract? It says there "Tana'im argue like this, about whether or not the Kedushah was permanent." What did he think initially, and what did he think at the end?

Answer: Rather, surely initially he thought that according to the opinion that the Kedushah was not permanent, Bamos were permitted, and he retracted due to the Mishnah below (112b) that there is no Heter after Yerushalayim;

Inference: All agree, even the one who holds that the Kedushah was not permanent;

The Tana'im who argue there about whether or not the Kedushah was permanent, it does not refer to R. Yitzchak's teaching. Rather, this is the flow of the Gemara. Because it mentioned "the initial Kedushah was for its time, but not forever", it said that Tana'im argue like this.

It brings the argument about Batei Ir Chomah, but not because it resembles it, for there is a distinction between Kedushas ha'Bayis and Batei Ir Chomah;

However, surely Kedushas Batei Ir Chomah resembles Kedushas ha'Aretz, for [the Gemara] equates them in Erchin (32b), regarding "it equates entering [Eretz Yisrael] in the days of Ezra to entering in the days of Yehoshua";

It could have brought several Tana'im, for some hold that the Kedushah was permanent, and some hold that it was not permanent;

In Chulin (6b), R. Meir holds that the Kedushah was not permanent regarding Beis She'an (he ate Yerek there without tithing it), and R. Yishmael and R. Yosi of Seder Olam in Yevamos (82b) hold that it is permanent.

Question: What is the source below (107b) that R. Yochanan holds that the Kedushah was permanent, since he obligates one who offers [outside] nowadays? Really I can say that he holds that the Kedushah was not permanent. Even so, there is no Heter after [Yerushalayim], like I explained!

Answer: If the Kedushah was not permanent, he would not be liable, for it is not proper for Pesach Ohel Mo'ed, for it was totally Nidcheh;

However, if the Kedushah was permanent, it was not Nidcheh, for he can build the Mizbe'ach and offer on it. Or, R. Yochanan discusses Ketores, which does not require a Mizbe'ach, like I explained above (59b Sof DH Ad).

Implied question: Rashi's text here says that the Kedushah was not permanent (regarding R. Yosi's teaching in the name of R. Yishmael). In Yevamos (82b), we heard R. Yosi say that the Kedushah was permanent in a Beraisa of Seder Olam!

Answer #1: There is a distinction, like I explained above, that even the one who says that Kedushas ha'Bayis was Batel, Kedushas ha'Aretz was not Batel, like we find in Nov and Giv'on.

Answer #2: [R. Yosi] taught [in Seder Olam that the Kedushah was permanent], but he does not hold like this, like we wanted to say in Nidah (46b).

Answer #3: [R. Yosi taught] one of these (i.e. in Yevamos) according to his own opinion, and one according to his Rebbi. Here he taught in the name of R. Yishmael.

Question: According to the text that the Kedushah was permanent, this is difficult, for Reish Lakish holds according to R. Yosi (Yevamos 81a) that Terumah nowadays is mid'Rabanan!

Answer: This is like I explained above. It is possible that even if Kedushas ha'Bayis was not Batel, Kedushas ha'Aretz was Batel. (Likewise, we can say vice-versa.)

Proof: We know that R. Yehoshua holds that a ring [of pressed figs of Terumah] is Batel in rings [of Chulin], in Beitzah (4a), and in Yevamos (81a) it is proven according to Reish Lakish that the one who says that it is Batel holds that Terumah nowadays is mid'Rabanan;

And we know that R. Yehoshua holds in many places that we may offer even without a Bayis.

Question: It is astounding to say [according to R. Yosi and R. Yehoshua] that Kedushas ha'Bayis endures to offer a Korban without a Beis ha'Mikdash, but [Kedushas ha'Aretz does not endure] to be obligated in Terumah!

Distinction: However, above that [we] said oppositely (Kedushas ha'Bayis is Batel, but Kedushas ha'Aretz endures to be obligated in Terumah), it is fine, like in Nov and Giv'on.

Answer - part 1: Here we can say that R. Yosi taught in the name of R. Yishmael, but he himself disagrees.

Answer - part 2: We can say that R. Yehoshua holds that only six matters are Mekadesh (are never Batel). Therefore, the rings are Batel.

Implied question: R. Eliezer is unsure in Shevuos (16a) and Megilah (10a), whether he holds that Kedushas [ha'Bayis] was permanent or not...

And we know that he holds in Chagigah (3b), regarding Amon and Mo'av tithe [mid'Rabanan] Ma'aser Oni in Shemitah, that he holds that Kedushas [ha'Aretz] was not permanent!

Answer: There is no proof from there (what he holds about Kedushas ha'Bayis), for "many cities [Olei Mitzrayim were Mekadesh them, and Olei Bavel were not Mekadesh them]" was not from R. Eliezer's words, like I explained in Yevamos (16a). It is not in his words in Maseches Yadayim (in Mishnah 4:3, which teaches the argument about Amon and Mo'av).

Explanation #1 (Rashi): We are thinking that [Kodshim are disqualified] because the Mizbe'ach was removed.

Source: It taught "Zavim and Metzora'im are expelled", that a Metzora may not enter the encampments of the Shevatim, and a Zav may not enter the Machaneh of the Leviyim, who carry the Aron, like it says below (61b) - even though it traveled, it is Ohel Mo'ed.

Inference: Their Pesul is not due to Yotzei, for it is considered Ohel Mo'ed.

Rejection: It is impossible [to say so], for according to how we now establish it now to discuss Kodshei Kodoshim, even without removal of the Mizbe'ach, just through removal of Kal'ei ha'Chatzer, Kodshei Kodoshim are disqualified due to Yotzei!

This is proven explicitly in Menachos (95a) that at the time of Masa'os (traveling in the Midbar), we do not say that Machaneh Shechinah is intact, and Lechem ha'Panim and other Kodshei Kodoshim because Pasul through Yotzei. "Nasa Ohel Mo'ed" (even though it traveled, it is Ohel Mo'ed) is not precise regarding Machaneh Shechinah.

However, regarding Kodshim Kalim surely they are not disqualified due to Yotzei due to the Machanos traveling. Regarding Machaneh Yisrael and Machaneh Levi, even though it traveled, it is Ohel Mo'ed, for their Machanos persist through the Degalim of the Shevatim, like is proven below (116b);

Therefore, Zavim and Metzora'im are expelled, and Kodshim Kalim are not disqualified through Yotzei.

Explanation #2: The question is because it taught "they are eaten in two places", which discusses Kodshim Kalim, even though the Mizbe'ach is not in its place.

Explanation: These are the Tana'im who argues with R. Yishmael in Temurah (21a), and explain the verse differently.

Explanation (Rashi): "Before" is not precise. Rather, it is after they erected everything - the Mishkan and the Mizbe'ach.

Implied suggestion: Perhaps it is truly before they erected the Mishkan. Since they set up the Mizbe'ach in its place, they may [slaughter and] eat Kodshei Kodoshim!

Rejection: First Bnei Gerson traveled and set up the Mishkan, and afterwards Bnei Kehas set up the Mizbe'ach.

Implied suggestion: Perhaps they changed the order and set up the Mizbe'ach first!

Rejection: If so, how could they slaughter Kodshim before erecting the Mishkan? We say (Yoma 62b) that Shelamim slaughtered before opening [the doors of] the Heichal is Pasul!

Defense (of suggestions): We can say that only regarding Shelamim it is written "u'Shachto Pesach Ohel Mo'ed." (Other Kodshim do not require that the Heichal is open.) All this is from Rashi.

Question (R. Baruch): A Mishnah about the Tamid (Tamid 30b) says that they did not slaughter it until they heard the great gate open. This shows that we learn other Kodshim from Shelamim, that we do not slaughter [them before the Heichal is open].

Poor answer #1: That is mid'Rabanan. (Mid'Oraisa, only Shelamim needs the Heichal to be open.)

Rejection: We learn from the Hekesh "Zos ha'Torah" to disqualify, from Shelamim.

Suggestion: Shelamim itself (slaughtered before the Heichal was opened) is Pasul only mid'Rabanan, for this was not repeated to teach that it is Me'akev.

Rejection: We say in Yoma (62b) that if one slaughtered Shelamim outside before the doors of the Heichal were opened, he is exempt;

Inference: Mid'Oraisa it is not proper for Pesach Ohel Mo'ed, for something Pasul only mid'Rabanan, one is liable for slaughtering it outside;

And even for a Pesul mid'Oraisa, one is liable for it outside when Im Alah Lo Yered, like is proven below (109a).

Conclusion: This is a proof that also other Kodshim are Pesulim inside [if slaughtered] before the doors of the Heichal were opened. If they were Kosher, if so regarding Shelamim, Im Alah Lo Yered, for it is called Pesulo b'Kodesh when there is a Hechsher elsewhere (e.g. other Korbanos);

If so, that regarding Shelamim, Im Alah Lo Yered, why is he exempt outside? Rather, surely also other Kodshim are Pesulim.

Rebuttal: One could say that since the doors of the Heichal were not opened before Shechitah, it is considered Shechitas Shelamim not in its place, and [Im Alah] Yered, even though other Kodshim are disqualified mid'Oraisa.

This is like Kodshei Kodoshim slaughtered in the south, in Me'ilah (2a). It is as if he choked them, and [Im Alah] Yered according to R. Yehudah, even though Kodshim Kalim slaughtered in the south are Kosher.

Distinction: However, according to R. Shimon, they do not descend, like it says there.

Consequence: If so, what it says in Yoma (62b), that one is exempt outside [for Shechitas Shelamim before the doors of the Heichal were opened] is like R. Yehudah.

Implied suggestion: Before they dissembled the Mishkan at all, they did Shechitah and Zerikah, and afterwards dissembled it, and switched the order when they camped and set up the Mizbe'ach and Kal'ei ha'Chatzer first...

And it says in the Sugya that before they set up the boards of the Mishkan, they can eat Kodshei Kodoshim.

Rejection: Immediately when they dissembled it, Kodshei Kodoshim were disqualified through Yotzei. We do not say "Nasa Ohel Mo'ed" (even though it traveled, it is Ohel Mo'ed) regarding Machaneh Shechinah!

Conclusion: Rather, surely "before they erected" is not precise [like Rashi explained]. Rather, they erected everything;

The Chidush is after they dissembled, like it says "this teaches that even though it traveled, it is Ohel Mo'ed", even though the Mishkan was dissembled, since Kal'ei ha'Chatzer and the Mizbe'ach are in their places. This is from R. Baruch.

Explanation: However, the Mizbe'ach and Kal'ei ha'Chatzer are in their places.

Distinction: However, if it totally traveled, Machaneh Shechinah is not intact regarding Kodshei Kodoshim, like I explained (61a DH Kodshim), and Lechem ha'Panim is disqualified due to Yotzei, like it says there (Menachos 95a) "if it was removed from its Sidur (arrangement) on the Shulchan, all agree that it is disqualified due to Yotzei";

Also, if it was totally dissembled, I already know that it is Pasul due to Pegimas ha'Mizbe'ach (this includes when it is not in its place)!

Question: In Menachos (95a), why do we attribute the reason for [Pesul of] Lechem ha'Panim due to Yotzei? It is already Pasul due to Pegimas ha'Mizbe'ach!

Suggestion: [We attribute the Pesul to Yotzei to disqualify even] if they returned and set up the Mizbe'ach the same day. Then [if the Pesul were due only to Pegimas ha'Mizbe'ach] they could eat [the Lechem ha'Panim]!

Rejection: Since it was Nidcheh, it does not return to be eaten.

Suggestion: [The Gemara] gave one of two reasons [why it is Pasul].

Rejection: If so, how did the Gemara infer there that they traveled at night, for if it was only during the day, why [do we attribute the Pesul to] Yotzei? It is already Pasul due to Linah! (Perhaps the Gemara gave only one of the reasons!)

Answer: Surely, removal (of the Mishkan) disqualifies, due to Yotzei or Pegimas ha'Mizbe'ach (either suffices to disqualify);

There, [the Gemara] infers that if it was disqualified due to Linah before they uprooted to travel, it turns out that traveling did not disqualify.

Question: In Menachos (95a), initially they argue about Lechem ha'Panim when it is removed, if it is disqualified through traveling.

The one who says that it is not disqualified learns from "v'Nasa Ohel Mo'ed." Even when it traveled, it is Ohel Mo'ed, even regarding Machaneh Shechinah. The other holds that the verse teaches about the order of traveling. (They carry the Mishkan after Degel Reuven starts traveling, and before Degel Efrayim.)

Why doesn't it answer that it is needed for the Drashah here, or for Machaneh Yisrael and Kodshim Kalim, like it says below (117b)?

Answer (R. Chaim): [There] he counters him according to his reasoning. [The one who says that it is not disqualified] holds that we do not need a verse for the Drashah here, or for the Drashah below (117b);

This is because he holds that even when there is no Mizbe'ach and no Kela'im, even Lechem ha'Panim, which is Kodshei Kodoshim, is not disqualified, for it is called that Machaneh Shechinah is intact.

Therefore, he answers that the verse teaches about the order of the Degalim.

Question: How did he think to say there that when it is removed, it is Kosher [even though it is] Yotzei? When it is removed it is disqualified due to Pegimas ha'Mizbe'ach!

Suggestion: [It is Kosher] when they returned and set up the Mizbe'ach the same day.

Rejection: How can they eat it? Since it was Nidcheh, it does not return [to be permitted]!

Answer #1: That is not the conclusion. (Rather, when it is removed, it is Pasul.)

Answer #2: Even when it is carried on the shoulder, it is the Mizbe'ach (it is not considered Pagum), like the one who says that even when it traveled, it is Ohel Mo'ed.

Version #1: This is Rashi' text.

Question (R. Tam): If so, four Amos of the Mizbe'ach were in Yehudah's portion, for presumably, in Bayis Rishon there was no Yesod in the southeast corner because it was not in the portion of Toref (Binyamin), like it says above (53b);

If in Bayis Sheni they added in the south, if so they built in Yehudah's portion!

Version #2 (R. Tam): [The text says that] they added from the north and west. So says the Mishnah in Midos (3:1).

Question #1: We conclude here that they added due to Shisim, so the pit will absorb [Nesachim] within (under) the Mizbe'ach. The Shisim were in the south, like a Mishnah below (63a) teaches;

The southwest corner served three matters above - Nisuch ha'Mayim veha'Yayin..., and a Mishnah in Midos (3:3) teaches that there was a place there (the southwest corner) an Amah by an Amah, and a marble block on it. Through it they descended to the Shitin.

Poor answer #1: [The Shisin] was on the western side, towards the southern corner (i.e. closer to the south than to the north, but it was not at the south end).

Question #2: A Beraisa in Me'ilah (11b), brought in Sukah (49a), teaches that there was a small window in the west side of the ramp. Once in 70 years, young Kohanim descend there and bring from there congealed wine! (The ramp was in the south.)

Support (for Version #1): The text of Seforim, which says "south and west", is correct;

In Bayis Rishon there was a Yesod in the south, for it was within the portion of Toref, except for the eastern side, which did not change. It was without a Yesod [for it was in] the portion of Yehudah, like in Bayis Sheni.

Implied question: There are verses that exclude a Keren without a Yesod (above, 51a)! (If there was a Yesod in the entire south, even the southeast corner had a Yesod!)

Answer #1: They were said due to Bayis Sheni.

Answer #2: Even in Bayis Rishon, the south[east] corner was not considered a Keren, since it did not have a Yesod on both sides, i.e. on the east (it had no Yesod. Since the northeast corner was considered a Keren, we must say that it had a Yesod also on the eastern side - PF.)

Answer #3: Since in the future, in Bayis Sheni, it would not have a Yesod, they did not put blood on it, just like on Moshe's Mizbe'ach, because in the future it would be without a Yesod in the Beis ha'Mikdash.