יש אחריה היתר וקדושת ירושלים אין אחריה היתר:
after the Tabernacle was destroyed, there is permission to sacrifice offerings on improvised altars. But with regard to the sanctity of Jerusalem, after the Temple was destroyed, there is no permission to sacrifice offerings on improvised altars, as the prohibition remains intact.
גמ׳ א"ר יצחק שמעתי שמקריבין בבית חוניו בזמן הזה קסבר בית חוניו לאו בית ע"ז היא וקא סבר קדושה ראשונה קידשה לשעתה ולא קידשה לעתיד לבוא
GEMARA: Rabbi Yitzḥak said: I heard that one sacrifices offerings in the temple of Onias in Egypt at the present time. The Gemara cites the basis for the statement of Rabbi Yitzḥak. He maintains that the temple of Onias is not a house of idol worship but rather a temple devoted to the service of God, and he maintains that the initial consecration sanctified Jerusalem for its time and did not sanctify Jerusalem forever. Therefore, after the destruction of the Temple, the sanctity of Jerusalem lapsed and the sacrifice of offerings elsewhere was no longer prohibited. For these reasons it was permitted to sacrifice offerings in the temple of Onias after the Temple was destroyed.
דכתיב (דברים יב, ט) כי לא באתם עד עתה אל המנוחה ואל הנחלה מנוחה זו שילה נחלה זו ירושלים מקיש נחלה למנוחה מה מנוחה יש אחריה היתר אף נחלה יש אחריה היתר
The Gemara cites the source of this halakha. It is as it is written: “For you are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance” (Deuteronomy 12:9), which is interpreted: “Rest,” this is Shiloh; “inheritance,” this is Jerusalem. The verse juxtaposes and likens inheritance to rest: Just as in the place of rest, Shiloh, after its destruction there is permission to sacrifice offerings on improvised altars, so too in the place of inheritance, Jerusalem, after its destruction there is permission to sacrifice offerings on improvised altars.
אמרו ליה אמרת אמר להו לא אמר רבא האלהים אמרה וגמירנא לה מיניה
The Gemara reports that the other Sages said to Rabbi Yitzḥak: Did you say this halakha with regard to the temple of Onias? He said to them: No, I did not say that. Rava said, reinforcing his assertion with an oath: By God! Rabbi Yitzḥak did in fact say this, and I myself learned it from him, but he later retracted this ruling.
ומ"ט קא הדר ביה משום קשיא דרב מרי דמותיב רב מרי קדושת שילה יש אחריה היתר קדושת ירושלים אין אחריה היתר ועוד תנן משבאו לירושלים נאסרו הבמות ולא היה להם עוד היתר והיא היתה לנחלה
The Gemara asks: And what is the reason he retracted his ruling? The Gemara explains: It is due to the difficulty raised by Rav Mari, as Rav Mari raised an objection from the mishna: With regard to the sanctity of Shiloh, after the Tabernacle was destroyed there is permission to sacrifice offerings on improvised altars. But with regard to the sanctity of Jerusalem, after the Temple was destroyed there is no permission to sacrifice offerings on improvised altars. And furthermore, we learned in a mishna (Zevaḥim 112b): Once they came to Jerusalem, improvised altars were prohibited, and they did not again have permission to do so, and Jerusalem became the everlasting inheritance.
תנאי היא (דתניא) א"ר אליעזר שמעתי כשהיו בונין בהיכל עושין קלעים להיכל וקלעים לעזרה אלא שבהיכל בונין מבחוץ ובעזרה בונין מבפנים
The Gemara comments: This matter is subject to a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a mishna (Eduyyot 8:6): Rabbi Eliezer said: I heard that when they were building the Sanctuary in the Second Temple, they fashioned temporary hangings for the Sanctuary and temporary hangings for the courtyard to serve as partitions until construction of the stone walls was completed. The difference was only that in building the Sanctuary, the workers built the walls outside the hangings, without entering, and in the courtyard, the workers built the walls inside the hangings.
וא"ר יהושע שמעתי שמקריבין אע"פ שאין בית אוכלין קדשי קדשים אע"פ שאין קלעים קדשים קלים ומעשר שני אע"פ שאין חומה מפני שקדושה ראשונה קידשה לשעתה וקידשה לעתיד לבוא מכלל דר"א סבר לא קידשה לעתיד לבוא
And Rabbi Yehoshua said: I heard that one sacrifices offerings on the altar even though there is no Temple, one eats offerings of the most sacred order in the Temple courtyard even if there are no hangings, and one eats offerings of lesser sanctity and second tithe produce in Jerusalem even if there is no wall surrounding the city, due to the fact that the initial consecration sanctified Jerusalem for its time and also sanctified Jerusalem forever. Even if the walls do not exist, the sanctity remains intact. The Gemara concludes: From the fact that Rabbi Yehoshua based his opinion on the principle that the initial sanctification sanctified Jerusalem forever, by inference one can conclude that Rabbi Eliezer holds: It did not sanctify Jerusalem forever. Apparently, this issue is subject to a dispute between tanna’im.
א"ל רבינא לרב אשי ממאי דלמא דכולי עלמא קדושה ראשונה קידשה לשעתה וקידשה לעתיד לבוא ומר מאי דשמיע ליה קאמר ומר מאי דשמיע ליה קאמר וכי תימא קלעים לר"א למה לי לצניעותא בעלמא
Ravina said to Rav Ashi: From where do you draw this inference? Perhaps everyone maintains that the initial consecration sanctified Jerusalem for its time and also sanctified Jerusalem forever. And one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, stated that tradition, which he heard from his teachers, and one Sage, Rabbi Yehoshua, stated that tradition, which he heard from his teachers, and there is no dispute between them. And if you would say: Why then do I need hangings at all according to Rabbi Eliezer? The original sanctity remained when Jerusalem was not surrounded by walls, and the presence or absence of hangings is irrelevant as well. The Gemara answers: The hangings were established merely for seclusion, as it would have been unbecoming for the activity in this most sacred venue to be visible to all.
אלא כי הני תנאי דתניא אמר רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי למה מנו חכמים את אלו שכשעלו בני הגולה מצאו את אלו וקידשום אבל הראשונות בטלו משבטלה הארץ אלמא קסבר קדושה ראשונה קידשה לשעתה ולא קידשה לעתיד לבוא
Rather, this matter is subject to the dispute between these tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: Why did the Sages enumerate these nine cities in tractate Arakhin as cities walled since the days of Joshua, son of Nun? Weren’t there many more? As, when the exiles ascended to Eretz Yisrael from Babylonia, they discovered these cities and consecrated them as walled cities; but the sanctity of the first walled cities enumerated in the book of Joshua was negated when settlement in the land was negated and the Jewish people were exiled. Apparently, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, maintains: The initial consecration sanctified Jerusalem for its time only and did not sanctify Jerusalem forever.
ורמינהו אמר רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי וכי אלו בלבד היו והלא כבר נאמר (דברים ג, ד) ששים עיר כל חבל ארגוב וכתיב (דברים ג, ה) כל אלה ערים בצורות חומה גבוהה אלא למה מנו חכמים את אלו שכשעלו בני הגולה מצאו אלו וקידשום
The Gemara raises a contradiction from a different baraita. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: Were these cities that were enumerated in tractate Arakhin the only walled cities? Wasn’t it already stated: “Sixty cities, all the region of Argov” (Deuteronomy 3:4), and concerning these cities it is written: “All these cities were fortified with high walls, gates and bars” (Deuteronomy 3:5), indicating that there were a great number of walled cities? Rather, why then did the Sages enumerate these specific cities? It is due to the fact that when the exiles ascended from Babylonia they discovered these and consecrated them as walled cities.
The Gemara asks: Consecrated them? If their sanctity remained, why was it necessary to consecrate them?