Explanation: [We are not Makdish] because we are concerned for Takalah.

Support: We say so in Bechoros (53a), that after the Churban, they were Mevatel Ma'aser Behemah due to [concern for] Takalah.

Question: In Shabbos (54b), it says that R. Elazar ben Azaryah used to tithe from his herd 12,000 calves every year. How can this be [if they were Mevatel Ma'aser Behemah after the Churban]?

R. Yochanan ben Zakai lived [also] some time after the Churban, for a Mishnah teaches "after Churban Beis ha'Mikdash, R. Yochanan ben Zakai enacted..."

He was the Nasi, and afterwards R. Gamliel was Nasi at least two years before R. Elazar ben Azaryah was made Nasi, like it connotes in Berachos 27b;

Citation (27b): Last year, he (R. Gamliel) pained [R. Yehoshua regarding which day was Rosh Hashanah. Also now, he is paining him...]

If so, R. Elazar ben Azaryah was at most 15 at the time of the Churban, for he was 18 when he was appointed Nasi [and his beard turned white], and this was at least three years after the Churban, like I explained;

He was a minor while the Mikdash stood, only [he could have been Bar Mitzvah at most] two years before the Churban. A minor does not tithe.

Summation of question: For [at most] the two years that he matured before the Churban, and then he did separate [tithes], we should not have said "every year"!

Note: Perhaps R. Yochanan ben Zakai was Nasi for only a few months after the Churban. Perhaps R. Gamliel was Nasi for only slightly more than a year before he was deposed! It is difficult to say that after the Churban on Tish'ah b'Av, R. Yochanan ben Zakai made all his decrees, and R. Gamliel was already Nasi seven weeks later at the time of the dispute about Rosh Hashanah. However, even if there was a year between the Churban and the dispute, perhaps R. Gamliel was deposed only slightly more than a year later, slightly more than two years after the Churban. Perhaps R. Elazar ben Azaryah was between 16 and 17 at the time of the Churban. We say that he was 18 when he became Nasi because he was not yet 19. He could have tithed four years, the first time when he was slightly more than 13! Even if it is unreasonable to count a partial year (we tithe animals three times a year. The Gemara connotes that each year he tithed roughly the same amount, and this is unreasonable if one year was only partial), he could have tithed three full years before the Churban! Also, a Mufla Samuch l'Ish can tithe and make Hekdesh. Tosfos (Erchin 2a DH Mufla) holds like Rashi, that this from 12 years old! Perhaps our Tosfos holds like the Rambam, that it is from 13 years, even before he brings hairs.

Answer #1: His overseer used to tithe [for him. Chacham Tzvi 33 asks that an overseer tithes only what is needed to feed the minor.]

Answer #2: They were not Mevatel Ma'aser Behemah immediately after the Churban.

Answer #3: Some say that he used to give a tithe to the king.

Rejection: If so, the Gemara should not have used these words [which connote the Mitzvah of Ma'aser Behemah].

Rashi's opinion: This is like we say that Stam Cherem is to Bedek ha'Bayis.

Ri's opinion: This is even according to the opinion that Stam Cherem is given to Kohanim.

Implied question: He holds that it is permitted. Takalah does not apply!

Answer: That is only after it is given to Kohanim, but not beforehand, like it says in Bechoros 32a;

Citation (32a): As long as Cheramim are in the owner's hand, they are like Hekdesh in every way. Me'ilah applies to them.

Question: If so, why does it say nowadays? Even when the Mikdash stands [we should have forbade making Cherem, due to Takalah]!

Answer #1: When the Mikdash stood, Kodshim were common. People were expert in the laws and careful about matters of Kedushah;

Nowadays, Kodshim are not common. People are not careful about them;

Answer #2: When the Mikdash stood, Kohanim were commonly found. One did not need to keep in his hands. He would immediately give it to the Kohen.

Question: In Erchin (29a), we say that a man made his property Cherem in Pumbedisa. He came in front of Rav Yehudah, who told him to throw four Zuz in the river [to redeem and permit his property].

Why didn't he tell him that Peros, garments and Kelim must rot... like the Beraisa here?

Answer: There, we discuss land. It has no solution other than redemption.

Suggestion: We could say that he must leave it fallow, and not work or seed it!

Rejection: There are many fallow fields. There is no reminder [that it is Cherem]. They can come to Takalah.

Question: You must say that there were also Metaltelim. The Gemara asks there "the episode in Pumbedisa also involved land..." This implies that there were also Metaltelim!

Answer: The solution (redemption through four Zuz) was only for the land. He did to the Metaltelim (left the Peros... to rot) like it says here.

Support - Question: The Gemara asked simply there that there was also land. Why was this obvious? Perhaps it was only Metaltelim!

Answer: You must say that there was also land, since he made a solution through redemption.

Implied question: Here we do not bring the Tana'im who argue about Takalah in Pesachim (20b), and there we do not bring the Tana'im brought here!

Answer: In each place we bring [an argument] similar to what was discussed.

Observation: This explains a question I had about the argument of R. Yehudah and R. Shimon in Shevuos (13b).

R. Yehudah holds that Kohanim get Kaparah through Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach for other Aveiros, and R. Shimon says that they get no Kaparah at all through it.

Citation (13b) Question: What is R. Shimon's reason?

Question (Tosfos): Why didn't we say that it is because the Torah wrote two confessions over the bull, and [the sprinkling of] its blood, like the Gemara says there afterwards?

Citation (14a): Granted, according to R. Shimon we need two confessions and the bull's blood [to atone for the Kohanim for the three atonements that Yisraelim get from the inner and outer goats and Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach];

We should say that this is why we require two confessions, unlike we conclude there according to R. Yehudah, like Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael, that one is for him and one is for his wife, for it is proper that one who is already Zakai (received atonement) atone for those who are Chayav...

Answer: From here, I answer that we must say that also R. Shimon holds like Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael, for R. Yirmeyah establishes our Mishnah like R. Shimon...

Even so, the Mishnah (35a) teaches regarding the first confession "I and Beisi", and regarding the second confession (41b) "u'Vnei Aharon", and the Gemara (43b) explains that this is due to R. Yishmael's teaching.

Observation: We say in Kerisus (14a) that Rafram's teaching is totally wrong;

We ask that perhaps Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach is different, for the Mitzvah is to do it on Yom Kipur [but normally, Hotza'ah is forbidden on Yom Kipur]! Rather, his teaching is wrong.

R. Chananel's opinion: They asked about the status of Avshalom, who had relations with the Pilagshim (concubines) of his father, in the world to come;

Explanation: Do we hold like Rav taught, that wives have a Kesuvah and Kidushin, but Pilagshim have no Kesuvah and no Kidushin?

We say so in Sanhedrin (21a). Or, perhaps we do not hold like him!

Opinion #2: They asked him about Shlomo. Do we hold like R. Yonason, who says "anyone who says that Shlomo sinned, he errs"?

It says "v'Lo Hayah Levavo Shalem..." - his heart was not [as totally dedicated to Hash-m] as the heart of his father David, but he did not sin;

We say so in Shabbos (56b) and the Tosefta in Yevamos.

Explanation: They asked about saving [the episode with] Bas Sheva from [being considered an Aveirah of] David;

Do we hold like R. Yonason, who said (Kesuvos 9b) that everyone who went to war in David's army wrote a Get to his wife, and [also] Uriyah wrote a Get to Bas Sheva?

Explanation: They asked about saving the shepherd from the lion, i.e. Uriyah from David;

Do we hold that one may show honor to a Talmid in place of his Rebbi, and Uriyah was not Mored b'Malchus (considered a rebel)?

Or, perhaps one may not honor a Talmid in place of his Rebbi, and he was Mored b'Malchus?

Explanation: He said "my master Yo'av", i.e. he called Yo'av his master, in front of David.

There are two opinions in Bava Basra 119b about whether one may honor a Talmid in place of his Rebbi.

Question: In Menachos (100a), we say that when Yom Kipur falls on Erev Shabbos, the outer goat of Yom Kipur is eaten raw [at night, for there is no Heter to cook it]. A Beraisa teaches oppositely!

R. Yosi says that [the Kohanim who ate it raw were not Bavliyim...] R. Yehudah said "you should have serenity, for you gave me serenity!"

Answer: Each of them taught what he heard;

R. Yehudah had a tradition that here, they were not [really] Bavliyim. R. Yosi had a tradition there [that they were not Bavliyim].