Explanation: In our Mishnah above (112b), Rashi explained that when they came to Gilgal, Ma'aser Sheni was not mentioned, because Ma'aseros did not apply until after inheritance and settlement (apportioning Eretz Yisrael to the Shevatim. Tzon Kodoshim - Rashi connotes that the Mishnah mentions Ma'aser Sheni regarding Nov and Giv'on, for then Ma'aser applied. The following question challenges this.)

Question: Here, the Gemara asks that also Ma'aser Sheni, they should take there, to Nov and Giv'on, and it concludes that our Mishnah is R. Shimon, who says that Chovos without a fixed time were not offered, i.e. Bechor and Ma'aser;

Since Ma'aser Behemah was not there, also Ma'aser of grain was not there. They did not need to bring it there [to eat it], for there is a Hekesh between the two [Ma'aseros].

Now, from this reason that it is equated to Ma'aser, it should not be eaten at all, just like Ma'aser Behemah in Nov and Giv'on, according to the opinion that that they did not offer obligations, and they needed to delay Bechor and Ma'aser until they became blemished, and the owner eats them with their Mum;

Ma'aser Sheni should have no solution, except for Pidyon!

Answer #1: Some texts do not mention Ma'aser Sheni in our Mishnah at all regarding Nov and Giv'on.

Answer #2: It seems that regarding bringing, one can equate [Ma'aser Behemah and of grain], that if one must be brought [to Nov or Giv'on], also the other must be brought;

This is like it says according to R. Yehudah, who says that obligations were offered in Nov and Giv'on. Also Ma'aser Sheni was eaten there.

However, this that Ma'aser Behemah was not offered according to R. Shimon, because obligations were not offered, it is not appropriate to equate Ma'aser Sheni, that it should not be eaten anywhere;

Ma'aser Behemah is not eaten because it requires Matanos of blood and Eimurim, and this cannot be done. However, Ma'aser Sheni is permitted.

Question: Above (60b), we learn Ma'aser from Bechor that it is not eaten nowadays!

Answer: There are [different] texts in Seforim. There I explained (DH Mai).

Question: If we find that Ma'aser Sheni may be eaten in all cities of Yisrael, if so, what it says in Pesachim (36b) "I include Ma'aser, for it has a Heter in all Moshvos (whenever you settle)", for R. Elazar said "what is the source that if Ma'aser Sheni became Tamei (it may be redeemed, even in Yerushalayim)...?"

Why do we need R. Elazar's teaching? Since [when the Mishkan was in] Nov and Giv'on, [Ma'aser Sheni] was eaten in all cities of Yisrael, if so [even Tahor Ma'aser had] a Heter in all Moshvos, like it says later in that Perek (38b) regarding Chalos Todah and Rekikei Nazir, which were eaten in Nov and Giv'on!

Answer: We need R. Elazar's teaching there due to R. Yehudah, for [Rav Yosef] said in our Sugya that there are three Biros (buildings) - of Shilo, of Nov and Giv'on (they are counted like one) and of the Beis ha'Mikdash. He said for eating Ma'aser Sheni, according to R. Yehudah [who says that when the Mishkan was in Nov and Giv'on, Ma'aser Sheni was eaten only there].

Question: How can it say there "I exclude Bikurim, which do not have a Heter in all Moshvos"? [When the Mishkan was] in Nov and Giv'on, they are eaten in all cities of Yisrael, like Ma'aser Sheni!

Answer #1: Bikurim cannot [be eaten], for they require Hanachah (being placed) next to the Mizbe'ach, like we said above (60b) and in Makos (19b) and in Temurah (21a) that Bikurim are eaten only while the Mikdash stands, because they require Hanachah.

Answer #2: This is like we find about Chazah v'Shok and Terumas Lachmei Todah. We said above (117b) that they apply on a Bamah Gedolah, but not on a Bamah Ketanah, for they require Tenufah. Also Bikurim [cannot be eaten, for] they require Tenufah!

They are unlike a Minchah, which is offered on a Bamah without Tenufah according to Rabanan who argue with R. Yehudah in our Mishnah, like I explained above (117b. Sof DH v'Ein) that the primary Mitzvah of a Minchah is Kemitzah and Haktarah. Therefore, it is not Batel due to (inability to do) Tenufah.

However, [Chazah v'Shok and Terumas Lachmei Todah], their primary Mitzvah is Tenufah. Therefore, [when Tenufah cannot be done] they are not done.

Implied question: It could have said also that it is Rabanan, who say that Chovos of an individual were not offered at a time of Heter Bamos, even on a Bamas Tzibur, and also R. Meir [says so]!

Answer: It mentions R. Shimon, because he makes this Drashah "Aser Ta'aser" - the verse discusses two Ma'aseros.

Observation: Above (60b), it mentioned the Hekesh of Ma'aser to Bechor. Here and there, one [Hekesh] suffices.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Even so, there was a Heter after [Shilo was destroyed], for [Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael] holds that the first Kedushah was for its time, but not for all time;

Regarding the Kedushah of Yerushalayim itself, he holds that there is a Heter after it is destroyed, like we say in Megilah (10a) "I heard that we may offer in Beis Chonyo (a place in Mitzrayim) nowadays", and we establish it like R. Yishmael. This is from Rashi.

Rebuttal: This is wrong. There it is R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi, who was later, in the days of Rebbi, and here it is R. Yishmael ben Elisha, who argues with R. Akiva, the Rebbi of R. Shimon bar Yochai. We concluded according to one text that [R. Yishmael] holds that it was made Kodesh [forever]!

Disclaimer: However, we cannot say that according to [R. Yishmael] there was no Heter after Shilo, for we find that Avshalom offered in Chevron, like it says "Elcha Na va'Ashalem Nidri Asher Nadarti [la'Shem] b'Chevron", and it says Ki Neder Nadar Avdecha b'Shivti vi'Geshor."

Implied suggestion: [R. Yishmael] would explain that he went merely to bring lambs from Chevron, for they were good there, and to offer them on the Bamah Gedolah in the Ohel Mo'ed in Giv'on, like [Rav Acha] wanted to say in Temurah (14a)!

Rejection: We conclude there that you are forced to say that he went to offer them on a Bamas Yachid, for if he went to bring, it should have said "mi'Chevron"!

Also, it says in Shmuel "Ki Hu Yevarech ha'Zevach", and regarding Sha'ul it says "Hagishu Elai ha'Olah veha'Shelamim va'Ya'al ha'Olah." Below, we bring verses that he offered at night on a Bamah.

Explanation (Rashi): This is a verse in Divrei ha'Yamim "Kumah Hash-m Elokim l'Nochacha Atah v'Aron Uzecha."

Observation: [The Gemara] could have brought a verse in Yehoshua "v'Hayah k'No'ach Kapos Raglei ha'Kohanim Nos'ei ha'Aron", or "va'Yhi bi'Nso'a ha'Aron... uv'Nucho Yomar."

Reference: I explained this above (53b) regarding "both of these [Shirayim are poured on] the southern Yesod." (The text here and there says "the men (this refers to R. Shimon bar Yochai, for his name and his father's name are mentioned) convinced the man (R. Yishmael. His name is mentioned alone.)

Implied question: Above (107a, Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael) expounded "va'Aleihem..." to connect the Parshiyos!

Answer: [He connects] Shechitah and Ha'alah, but he does not say to connect so much Heter Bamos to Isur Bamos.

Question: How can [the Tana] teach "he is totally exempt" regarding something that it is the Mitzvah to do so?!

Suggestion: It is needed due to Chovos, which are not offered on a Bamah, or due to Korbanos Tzibur, and if he slaughtered and offered outside, he is totally exempt.

Rejection: [He is not totally exempt.] There is a Lav inferred from an Aseh!

Answer: We discuss an Olah of a Bamas Yachid. Even if he was Makdish it in order to offer it on a Bamah Gedolah, and even if he entered it inside, and the Mechitzos absorbed it, like it says below, even so if he returned and took it out and slaughtered it, he is totally exempt.

Observation: Minchah is unlike the others. The one who holds that a Minchah is not offered on a Bamah, this means that it is not offered at all on a Bamah Gedolah at a time of Heter Bamos;

However, Kehunah, Bigdei Shares, a Mechitzah l'Damim (a division for upper and lower blood) and all the others, we establish only on a Bamah Ketanah, but on a Bamah Gedolah, e.g. the copper Mizbe'ach in Nov and Giv'on, all of them applied, for all agree that in Kodshim of a Bamah Gedolah there is Chitzuy (a distinction between the top half and the bottom half).

Version #1: This is Rashi's text. (This Dibur continues on the next Daf.)