Two Opinions: In Perek Kol ha'Menachos Ba'os Matzah (Menachos, Daf 96b), Tana'im argue over someone who makes a Mum on Kodshim - one opinion holds 'Lokeh', the other, 'Eino Lokeh'; this She'eilah goes according to both opinions ...

Explanation #1: Even according to the one that says there 'Lokeh' - that is because it was fit to bring on the Mizbe'ach before it became blemished, but those that were never fit, are not subject to Malkus; or perhaps there is no difference?

Explanation #2: Whereas according to the one that says 'Eino Lokeh' - that is because initially it also had a blemish, but here, where it was initially Tamim, it is subject to Malkus; or perhaps there is no difference?

Clarification: Rashi in Zevachim (Daf 107b) explains that according to the opinion that 'Kidshah le'Asid Lavo', one may bring even though there is no Mizbe'ach.

Question: But one requires a Mizbe'ach, and there is none/

Answer #1: The Gemara is asking from a B'chor that was Shechted and its blood sprinkled before the Beis-Hamikdash was destroyed, in which case it lacks only eating inside the wall, similar to Ma'aser (Sheini).

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Gemara is asking that regarding B'chor too, one should bring it and build a Mizbe'ach.

Text: This is the text according to Rashi.

Question #1: According to the opinion that holds 'Lo Kidshah le'Asid Lavo' there is no Kedushah in Yerushalayim any more than in any other town?

Question #2: Moreover, the Gemara says in the last Perek of Zevachim (Ibid.) that according to that opinion, Ma'aser Sheini can be eaten in any city in Eretz Yisrael?

Answer: One can at least answer the second Kashya in that it speaks here about Ma'aser that was planted before the Beis Hamikdash was destroyed, in which case it had to be brought to Yerushalayim ...

Reason: Because in such a case, it does not say that it can be eaten in any town in Eretz Yisrael.

Text/Explanation #1: This is the text according to Rashi.

Question #1: In that case, why does the Gemara give the reason that - the flesh is compared to the blood'? - Why not because it became Pasul by leaving the Azarah, seeing as it as if it did not have a wall?

Question #2: Moreover, the Gemara says in Zevachim (in Perek Kodshei Kodshim, Daf 60a) - 'If the Mizbe'ach was damaged, one may not eat Kodshim Kalim because of it - and it learns it from this reason that 'Its flesh is compared to its blood' ...

Question #2: Whilst here the Gemara explains that the Hekesh of Basar to Dam goes according to the opinion that holds 'Lo Kidshah le'Asid Lavo' (See Shitah Mekubetzes 29)?

Text/Explanation #2: Therefore the Ri has the text (earlier) - 'I ka'Savar "Lo Kidshah le'Asid Lavo", he shouldn't be able to bring Ma'aser Sheini, and it is speaking by Ma'aser that was planted before the Beis Hamikdash was destroyed, as Tosfos explained earlier.

Text/Explanation #2 (cont.): And the text (here) reads 'Really he holds "Kedushah Rishonah Kidshah le'Sha'atah ve'Kidshah le'Asid Lavo", and if you ask let him bring the B'chor

Conclusion: Now all the Kashyos are answered.

Question: Tosfos Rebbe asks that this is fine with regard to a B'chor whose blood was sprinkled in the time of the Beis Hamikdash ...

Reason: Which can only be eaten in the Beis Hamikdash, as the Gemara explains ...

Question (cont.): But why can Bikurim, which were placed (in front of the Mizbe'ach) in the time of the Beis Hamikdash, only be eaten in front of the Beis Hamikdash?

Answer: And Tosfos' Rebbe, ha'Rav Mordechai answered that they can indeed be eaten even nowadays ...

Implied Question: And when it says that they can't ...

Answer (cont.): It speaks where they were not placed when the Beis Hamikdash stood.

Proof: And this is evident - since the Gemara asks on it 'Whereas Bikurim require placing?'.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara establishes the case by a B'chor whose blood was sprinkled in the Beis Hamikdash ...

Answer: It is referring to the Maskana of the Beraisa, which compares Ma'aser to B'chor - and presumably B'chor, like Ma'aser lacks only bringing to the correct location, in which case it must have been sprinkled in the time of the Beis Hamikdash ...

Proof (cont.): Whereas the Beraisa itself speaks about Bikurim that were not placed, but if they had been, they could in all likelihood have been eaten after the Churban.

Machlokes Tana'im: It now emerges that there is a Machlokes Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Akiva, in that ...

Rebbi Yishmael: According to Rebbi Yishmael, one may not bring B'chor and Ma'aser from Chutz la'Aretz Lechatchilah , but Bedi'eved, if they came without a blemish they can be brought on the Mizbe'ach - like the Mishnah.

Rebbi Akiva: Whereas Rebbi Akiva holds that even Bedi'eved they cannot be brought, seeing as they are compared to Ma'aser Dagan- and the case of ben Antignos goes like him.

Question: Rebbi Akiva reasoning is fine, as he himself explains ...

Question (cont.): But what is Rebbi Yishmael's reason?

Question (cont.): If he holds of the Hekesh to Ma'aser Dagan, it ought to be Pasul even Bedi'eved, and if he doesn't, then why can he not bring them even Lechatchilah?

Answer: He learns it from the D'rashah of the Sifri, which, based on the Pasuk earlier (Perek 12) "Rak Kodoshecha asher Yih'yu lach", learns that one may bring Kodshim from Chutzah la'Aretz to Eretz Yisrael (See Shitah Mekubetzes 26) ...

Answer (cont.): Perhaps we might think that the same applies to B'chor and Ma'aser? Therefore the Torah writes "Rak", with reference to Lechatchilah ...

Proof: Since that complies with the context of thye Pasuk - "Tisa u'Basa", which is Lechatchilah.

Question: Why would we even think that it can be eaten in any place where one can see (Yerushalayim) - bearing in mind that the Torah writes "before Hash-m your G-d"?

Answer: Like Shilah, where one may eat Ma'aser Ma'aser Sheini wherever one can see (Shiloh).

Support: There are some texts which actually insert this Kashya and answer.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that even the Rabbanan, who will say later, and who argue with Rebbi and say - that a Chatas only dies if it is found after the owner has been atoned, concede here ...

Reason: Since there are two things that are detrimental - that it got lost and that it was found to be a Ba'alas-Mum.

Implied Question: And the reason that it says that it is a Ba'alas-Mum is ...

Answer: Because if it would be a Temimah, seeing as it was found before the atonement, even if the owner is subsequently atoned for with another Korban, it will graze (Up to here are the words of Rashi).

Question #1: This is not correct however; because it implies that more detriments cause it to have to die, whereas on the contrary, the Sugya implies that more detriments cause it to have to graze? ...

Source: As Rava says in the Gemara 'Lost at night is not considered lost - meaning that it does not die but must graze.

Question #2: Moreover, according to Rebbi Aba in the Gemara later (23a) 'Everyone agrees that if he was atoned for with an animal that is not lost, the one that is lost must die ...

Question #2 (cont.): And here it is speaking where he was atoned for by one that was not lost - in which case, why, according to Rebbi Aba, must it be a Ba'alas-Mum?

Answer to Question #2: There are Sugyos in Perek Mi she'Hayah Tamei (Pesachim, Daf 86a) and in Perek ha'Todah (Menachos, Daf 80a) and even later (on Daf 23a) that do not hold like Rebbi Aba.

Question #3: Furthermore the Gemara later extrapolates from the Mishnah later that our Mishnah goes like the Rabbanan - when (according to Rashi) it ought to have made the inference from here - from the fact that it mentions 'Ba'alas-Mum'?

Explanation #2: Therefore the explanation must be that in mentions 'Ba'alas-Mum' for the Chidush - inasmuch as we would otherwise have thought that since there are so many detriments - that it is both lost and a Ba'alas-Mum, it is as if it got lost at night-time and must graze ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): It therefore teaches us that nevertheless it must die (See Hagahos ha'Gra).

Clarification: According to each opinion the way he holds ...

Clarification (cont.): According to Rebbi even if it is found before the Kaparah; according to the Rabbanan, if it is found specifically after the Kaparah.