## Zevachim Daf 60b

###### Zevachim 60b:1
[Zevachim 60b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/60b:1)

שְׁלֹשָׁה זְקֵנִים, וְזֶה אֶחָד מֵהֶן: רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר, יָכוֹל יַעֲלֶה אָדָם מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי לִירוּשָׁלַיִם וְיֹאכְלֶנּוּ בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה? וְדִין הוּא – בְּכוֹר טָעוּן הֲבָאַת מָקוֹם, וּמַעֲשֵׂר טָעוּן הֲבָאַת מָקוֹם; מָה בְּכוֹר – אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת, אַף מַעֲשֵׂר – אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**three elders, and this is one of them: Rabbi Yishmael says:** One **might** have thought that **a person would bring second-tithe** produce **up to Jerusalem in the present,** after the destruction of the Temple, **and eat it. And** ostensibly, **it** could be derived by means of **a logical inference** that one may not do so: **A firstborn** offering **requires bringing** it **to** the **place,** to Jerusalem, and eating it there, **and** second**-tithe** produce **requires bringing** it **to** the **place** (see Deuteronomy 12:17–18); **just as** the **firstborn** offering may be eaten there **only in the presence of the Temple, so too,** second**-tithe** produce may be eaten there **only in the presence of the Temple.**


###### Zevachim 60b:2
[Zevachim 60b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/60b:2)

מָה לִבְכוֹר, שֶׁכֵּן טָעוּן מַתַּן דָּמִים וְאֵימוּרִים לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yishmael notes that this derivation can be challenged: **What** is notable **about a firstborn?** Bringing the firstborn to Jerusalem is required only in the presence of the Temple, because it is notable **in that it requires placement of** its **blood and** its **sacrificial portions upon** the **altar;** will you say the same with regard to second-tithe produce, which requires only that it be consumed in Jerusalem?


###### Zevachim 60b:3
[Zevachim 60b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/60b:3)

בִּיכּוּרִים יוֹכִיחוּ. מָה לְבִיכּוּרִים, שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנִין הַנָּחָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
He continues: **First fruits will prove** that placement of blood upon the altar is not a factor, as they do not require placement of blood upon the altar, and yet they are brought to Jerusalem only in the presence of the Temple. Rabbi Yishmael counters: **What** is notable **about first fruits?** They are notable **in that they require placement** alongside the altar. Perhaps, since second-tithe produce does not require placement at all, even in the present one must bring it to Jerusalem and eat it there.


###### Zevachim 60b:4
[Zevachim 60b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/60b:4)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וַהֲבֵאתֶם שָׁמָּה עֹלֹתֵיכֶם וְגוֹ׳״ – מַקִּישׁ מַעֲשֵׂר לִבְכוֹר; מָה בְּכוֹר – אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת, אַף מַעֲשֵׂר – אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yishmael concludes: Therefore, **the verse states: “And there you shall bring your burnt offerings,** and your sacrifices, and your tithes…and the firstborns of your herd and of your flock” (Deuteronomy 12:6); the Torah **juxtaposes** second-**tithe** produce **with** the **firstborn. Just as** the **firstborn** offering may be eaten there **only in the presence of the Temple, so too,** second**-tithe** produce may be eaten there **only in the presence of the Temple.**


###### Zevachim 60b:5
[Zevachim 60b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/60b:5)

וְנִיהְדַּר דִּינָא, וְנֵיתֵי בְּ״מָה הַצַּד״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions why a verse was needed to teach that second-tithe produce may not be consumed nowadays: **But let the logical derivation return and** the *halakha* **will be derived from the common element** between the *halakhot* of firstborn animals and first fruits. Although each has a unique factor, they share a common element: They must be brought to Jerusalem and they may be eaten only in the presence of the Temple. So too, second-tithe produce, which also must be brought to Jerusalem, should be permitted for consumption only in the presence of the Temple.


###### Zevachim 60b:6
[Zevachim 60b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/60b:6)

מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן – שֶׁכֵּן יֵשׁ בָּהֶן צַד מִזְבֵּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yishmael did not present this derivation **because** it **can be refuted** in the following manner: **What** is notable **about** the two sources that share **a common element?** Both firstborn animals and first fruits are notable **in that they possess an aspect** of being offered upon the **altar.** Since second-tithe produce does not share this characteristic, its *halakhot* cannot be derived from those pertaining to firstborn animals and first fruits.


###### Zevachim 60b:7
[Zevachim 60b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/60b:7)

מַאי קָסָבַר? אִי קָסָבַר קְדוּשָּׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה קִידְּשָׁה לִשְׁעָתָהּ וְקִידְּשָׁה לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא – אֲפִילּוּ בְּכוֹר נָמֵי! וְאִי קָסָבַר לֹא קִידְּשָׁה לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא – אֲפִילּוּ בְּכוֹר נָמֵי תִּיבְעֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What does** Rabbi Yishmael **hold? If he holds** that the **initial consecration** of the Temple **sanctified it for its time and sanctified it forever,** then it should be permitted to build an altar and sacrifice offerings even nowadays, and therefore **even a firstborn** animal may be eaten. **And if he holds** that the initial consecration of the Temple area **did not sanctify it forever, let the dilemma be raised** with regard to **a firstborn as well.**


###### Zevachim 60b:8
[Zevachim 60b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/60b:8)

אָמַר רָבִינָא: לְעוֹלָם קָסָבַר לֹא קִידְּשָׁה; וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בִּבְכוֹר שֶׁנִּזְרַק דָּמוֹ קוֹדֶם חוּרְבַּן הַבַּיִת, וְחָרַב הַבַּיִת, וַעֲדַיִין בְּשָׂרוֹ קַיָּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said: Actually,** Rabbi Yishmael **holds** that the initial consecration of the Temple **did not sanctify it** forever. **And** although one cannot slaughter the firstborn to begin with, **here we are dealing with a firstborn** that was slaughtered and **whose blood was sprinkled** on the altar **before the destruction of the Temple, and** then **the Temple was destroyed, and the meat of** the firstborn **still exists.**


###### Zevachim 60b:9
[Zevachim 60b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/60b:9)

וְאִיתַּקַּשׁ בְּשָׂרוֹ לְדָמוֹ; מָה דָּמוֹ בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ, אַף בְּשָׂרוֹ בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ; וְאָתֵי מַעֲשֵׂר וְיָלֵיף מִבְּכוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is prohibited to eat the meat of the firstborn in this case because **its meat was juxtaposed with its blood,** which is mentioned in the previous verse, as it is stated: “You shall sprinkle their blood…and you shall burn their fats…and their flesh shall be yours” (Numbers 18:17–18). The juxtaposition teaches that **just as its blood** is sprinkled only **on the altar, so too, its meat** may be consumed only **in** a time when there is **an altar. And** the case of second-**tithe** produce **comes and is derived from** the case of **a firstborn.** Consequently, second-tithe produce may not be consumed unless there is an altar.


###### Zevachim 60b:10
[Zevachim 60b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/60b:10)

וְכִי דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ, חוֹזֵר וּמְלַמֵּד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ?! מַעְשַׂר דָּגָן חוּלִּין הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But does a matter derived via a juxtaposition** with another case **then teach** that the *halakha* applies to a third case **via a juxtaposition** between the second and third cases? There is a principle that this is not a valid method of deriving *halakhot* pertaining to consecrated matters. Since the *halakha* with regard to the meat of the firstborn offering is derived from the juxtaposition of the meat with the blood of the firstborn, one cannot then prove that the same *halakha* applies to second-tithe produce simply because it is juxtaposed in a verse with the meat of the firstborn. The Gemara answers: Second-**tithe grain is non-sacred,** and therefore the acceptable methods for deriving its *halakhot* are not limited in this manner.


###### Zevachim 60b:11
[Zevachim 60b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/60b:11)

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בָּתַר לָמֵד אָזְלִינַן; אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בָּתַר מְלַמֵּד אָזְלִינַן – מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **This works out well according to the one who says:** In determining whether the derivation involves consecrated matters or whether it involves non-sacred matters, **we follow** the matter that **is derived** from a matter derived from a juxtaposition. Since in this case the matter derived is second-tithe produce, which for these purposes is non-sacred, its legal status may be derived from juxtaposition with the *halakhot* of sacrificial matters. **But according to the one who says: We follow** the matter that **teaches,** i.e., from which the *halakha* is derived, **what is there to say?** The status of second-tithe produce may not be derived by means of juxtaposition with the status of the firstborn offering, which itself was derived from the blood of the offering, because the firstborn offering is a sacrificial matter.


###### Zevachim 60b:12
[Zevachim 60b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/60b:12)

דָּם וּבָשָׂר חֲדָא מִילְּתָא הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: This is not a matter derived from a matter derived from a juxtaposition, as the status of the firstborn offering is not derived from the status of blood; **blood and meat are one matter.** There is only one derivation in this case, which is that the status of second-tithe produce is derived from the status of the blood and the meat of the firstborn. In any event, Abaye has proven, quoting Rabbi Yishmael’s statement cited by Rabbi Yosei, that even sacrificial items of lesser sanctity may not be eaten if the altar is missing or damaged.


###### Zevachim 60b:13
[Zevachim 60b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/60b:13)

כִּי סְלֵיק רָבִין, אַמְרַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה. אָמַר: בַּבְלָאֵי טַפְשָׁאֵי – אַמְּטוּל דְּיָתְבִי בְּאַרְעָא חֲשׁוֹכָא, אָמְרִי שְׁמַעְתָּא דִּמְחַשְּׁכָא! לָא שְׁמִיעַ לְהוּ הָא דְּתַנְיָא: בִּשְׁעַת סִילּוּק מַסָּעוֹת – קָדָשִׁים נִפְסָלִין, וְזָבִים וּמְצוֹרָעִים מִשְׁתַּלְּחִים חוּץ לַמְּחִיצָה;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **When Ravin ascended** from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, **he stated this *halakha*,** that even items of lesser sanctity are disqualified if the altar is damaged or missing, **in the presence of Rabbi Yirmeya.** Rabbi Yirmeya **said: Foolish Babylonians! Because they dwell in a dark land, they state *halakhot* that are dim. Have they not heard that which is taught** in a *baraita*: **At the time** when the Jewish people would dismantle the Tabernacle in order to **depart** on their **journeys** in the wilderness, **sacrificial** food was **disqualified** from being consumed, since the altar was not in place. Nevertheless, ***zavim* and lepers** were **sent out of** the relevant **partition;** a *zav* was sent out of the Levite camp and a leper was sent out of the Israelite camp.


###### Zevachim 60b:14
[Zevachim 60b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/60b:14)

וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: בִּשְׁנֵי מְקוֹמוֹת קֳדָשִׁים נֶאֱכָלִים. מַאי, לָאו הָא בְּקׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, הָא בְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And it is taught** in **another** *baraita*: **Sacrificial** food could be **consumed in two locations,** i.e., one could eat it while the Tabernacle was in place and one could continue eating it after the Tabernacle had been disassembled and transported. **What, is it not** that **this** first *baraita* is referring **to offerings of the most sacred order,** and **that** second *baraita* is referring **to offerings of lesser sanctity?** Accordingly, Abaye’s statement that offerings of lesser sanctity may not be consumed if the altar is damaged is incorrect.


###### Zevachim 60b:15
[Zevachim 60b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/60b:15)

אָמַר רָבִינָא: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים; וְלָא קַשְׁיָא –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said** that there is an alternative reconciliation of the two *baraitot*: Both **this** *baraita* **and that** *baraita* are referring **to offerings of lesser sanctity, and** it is **not difficult:**