Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

December 13, 2017 | 讻状讛 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Shevuot 15

Study Guide Shevuot 15. The ceremony for consecrated additional space in the azara of the Beit Hamikdash is discussed.

讜讻谉 转注砖讜 诇讚讜专讜转

and so shall you do鈥 (Exodus 25:9). The final words: 鈥淎nd so shall you do,鈥 are superfluous and serve to teach: As was done in the Tabernacle, so shall you do in future generations.

诪转讬讘 专讘讗 讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 砖注砖讛 诪砖讛 诪砖讬讞转谉 诪拽讚砖转谉 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 注讘讜讚转谉 诪讞谞讻转谉 讜讗诪讗讬 讜谞讬诪讗 讜讻谉 转注砖讜 诇讚讜专讜转

Rava raises an objection from a baraita: With regard to all the sacred vessels that Moses fashioned, their anointment with oil consecrates them. From that point forward, in the generations after Moses, new vessels do not require anointment to be consecrated; rather, their use in the Temple service initiates them and renders them fit for use. Rava clarifies the objection: But why is this so? Let us say here as well that the phrase 鈥渁nd so shall you do鈥 teaches that the same must be done in future generations.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬诪砖讞诐 讜讬拽讚砖 讗转诐 讗讜转诐 讘诪砖讬讞讛 讜诇讗 诇讚讜专讜转 讘诪砖讬讞讛

The Gemara answers: It is different there, as the verse states with regard to the Tabernacle and its vessels: 鈥淎nd he anointed them and consecrated them鈥 (Numbers 7:1). This teaches that it is only 鈥渢hem,鈥 the vessels fashioned by Moses, that are consecrated through anointment, but vessels fashioned in later generations are not consecrated through anointment.

讗讬诪讗 讗讜转诐 讘诪砖讬讞讛 诇讚讜专讜转 讗讜 讘诪砖讬讞讛 讗讜 讘注讘讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗砖专 讬砖专转讜 讘诐 讘拽讚砖 转诇讗谉 讛讻转讜讘 讘砖讬专讜转

The Gemara asks: Why not say: 鈥淭hem,鈥 the vessels made by Moses, he consecrated specifically through anointment, but vessels made in future generations are consecrated either through anointment or through their initial service? Rav Pappa said: The verse states: 鈥淎nd they shall take all the service vessels, with which they will serve in the Sanctuary鈥 (Numbers 4:12). The future tense 鈥渢hey will serve,鈥 indicates that the verse is referring to future vessels, and the verse makes them dependent upon service, teaching that in future generations vessels will be consecrated through their initial service.

讛砖转讗 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讗砖专 讬砖专转讜 讗讜转诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗讬 诇讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讗讜转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 讛讜讗 讚讘诪砖讬讞讛 诇讚讜专讜转 讘诪砖讬讞讛 讜讘注讘讜讚讛 讚讛讗 讻转讘 讜讻谉 转注砖讜 诪讬注讟 专讞诪谞讗 讗讜转诐 讗讜转诐 讘诪砖讬讞讛 讜诇讗 诇讚讜专讜转 讘诪砖讬讞讛

The Gemara asks: Now that the Merciful One has written 鈥渨ith which they will serve,鈥 why do I need the restrictive term 鈥渢hem鈥? The Gemara answers: Had the Merciful One not written 鈥渢hem,鈥 I would say that they, the vessels made by Moses, were consecrated through anointment alone, but vessels made in later generations must be consecrated both through anointment and through service, as the Torah wrote: 鈥淎nd so shall you do,鈥 referring to future generations. Therefore, the Merciful One excluded future vessels from anointment by stating 鈥渢hem,鈥 teaching that it is only them that were consecrated through anointment, but in later generations they are not consecrated through anointment.

讜讘砖转讬 转讜讚讜转 转谞讗 砖转讬 转讜讚讜转 砖讗诪专讜 讘诇讞诪谉 讜诇讗 讘讘砖专谉 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗注诪讬讚讛 砖转讬 转讜讚转 讙讚讜诇转 讜转讛诇讻转 诇讬诪讬谉 诪注诇 诇讞讜诪讛

搂 The mishna teaches: And with two thanks-offerings. A tanna taught in a baraita: And with regard to the two thanks-offerings that are mentioned here, the reference is to their loaves, but not to their flesh. An animal thanks-offering is accompanied by forty loaves of bread that are brought as a meal-offering. Ten loaves are leavened, and the remainder is comprised of ten each of three types of unleavened bread. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav 岣sda said: As the verse states with regard to the consecration of the wall of Jerusalem in the days of Ezra: 鈥淎nd I placed two large thanks-offerings, and we went in procession to the right upon the wall鈥 (Nehemiah 12:31).

诪讗讬 讙讚讜诇讜转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪诪讬谉 讙讚讜诇 诪诪砖 谞讬诪讗 驻专讬诐 讗诇讗 讙讚讜诇讜转 讘诪讬谞谉

The Gemara clarifies the meaning of this verse: What is meant by 鈥渓arge鈥? If we say that the animals of the thanks-offering were literally from a large species, i.e., oxen, rather than from a small species, i.e., sheep, let the verse state that they were oxen. Rather, let us say that he took animals from among the largest and the finest quality of their species.

诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讞砖讬讘讜转讗 拽诪讬 砖诪讬讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 谞讗诪专 讘注讜诇转 讘讛诪讛 讗砖讛 专讬讞 谞讬讞讞 讘注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 讗砖讛 专讬讞 谞讬讞讞 讘诪谞讞讛 讗砖讛 专讬讞 谞讬讞讞 诪诇诪讚 砖讗讞讚 讛诪专讘讛 讜讗讞讚 讛诪诪注讬讟 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬讻讜讬谉 讗转 诇讘讜 诇讗讘讬讜 砖讘砖诪讬诐

The Gemara challenges this: Is the size of the offering of any importance before Heaven? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a mishna (Mena岣t 110a): It is stated with regard to an animal burnt-offering: 鈥淎 fire offering, a pleasing aroma鈥 (Leviticus 1:9), and it is also stated with regard to a bird burnt-offering: 鈥淎 fire offering, a pleasing aroma鈥 (Leviticus 1:17), and it is also stated with regard to a meal-offering: 鈥淎 fire offering, a pleasing aroma鈥 (Leviticus 2:2). The same term is used in all three cases even though the three offerings are of different value. This teaches that one who brings a substantial sacrifice and one who brings a modest sacrifice have equal merit, and both offerings are accepted as having a pleasing aroma, provided that one directs his heart to his Father in Heaven.

讗诇讗 讙讚讜诇讛 砖讘转讜讚讛 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讞诪抓 讚转谞谉 讛转讜讚讛 讛讬转讛 讘讗讛 诪谉 讞诪砖 住讗讬谉 讬专讜砖诇诪讬讜转 砖讛谉 砖砖 诪讚讘专讬讜转 砖讛谉 砖转讬 讗讬驻讜转 讜讛讗讬驻讛 砖诇砖 住讗讬谉 注砖专讬诐 注砖专讜谉 注砖专讛 诇讞诪抓 讜注砖专讛 诇诪爪讛 讜讘诪爪讛 砖诇砖讛 诪讬谞讬谉 讞诇讜转 专拽讬拽讬谉 讜专讘讜讻讛

Rather, let us say that 鈥渓arge thanks-offerings鈥 means the larger element in the thanks-offering loaves. And what is that? The leavened loaves, as we learned in a mishna (Mena岣t 76b): The meal part of the thanks-offering came from five Jerusalem se鈥檃 of flour, which are equivalent to six wilderness se鈥檃. The se鈥檃 referred to in the Bible when the Jewish people were in the wilderness is smaller than the se鈥檃 used later in Jerusalem. This is equivalent to two ephahs, each ephah being three wilderness se鈥檃. These two ephahs are twenty measures of a tenth of an ephah. Ten of these tenths were used to make leavened loaves and ten of these tenths were used to make unleavened loaves. And the unleavened loaves were of three types: Loaves of matza, wafers, and measures of flour mixed with water and oil. Accordingly, the leavened loaves were three times the size of the unleavened ones, and it was the leavened loaves that were used to consecrate additions to the city.

讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讗讬谉 讛注讝专讛 诪转拽讚砖转 讗诇讗 讘砖讬专讬 诪谞讞讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诪讛 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讚讘专 讛谞讗讻诇 讘讛 诪拽讚砖讛 讗祝 注讝专讛 讚讘专 讛谞讗讻诇 讘讛 诪拽讚砖讛

Rami bar 岣ma says: One can infer from this baraita that the Temple courtyard is consecrated only with the remainder of the meal-offering, and not by the loaves of a thanks-offering. The remainder of the meal-offering is the part left over after a handful of it and its frankincense have been sacrificed on the altar; this remainder is eaten by a priest. What is the reason for this? The consecration of the Temple courtyard is like the consecration of Jerusalem. Just as with regard to Jerusalem, an item that is eaten specifically in it, i.e., the loaves of a thanks-offering, which are eaten anywhere in the city, consecrates the city, so too, with regard to the Temple courtyard, an item that is eaten specifically in it, i.e., the remainder of the meal-offering, consecrates the courtyard.

讗讟讜 诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 讘注讝专讛 诪讬 诇讗 诪转讗讻诇讬 讗诇讗 讻讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诪讛 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讚讘专 讛谞讗讻诇 讘讛 讜讬讜爪讗 诪诪谞讛 谞驻住诇 讗祝 注讝专讛 讚讘专 讛谞讗讻诇 讘讛 讜讛讬讜爪讗 诪诪谞讛 谞驻住诇

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the loaves of a thanks-offering are not eaten in the Temple courtyard? Rather, the comparison should be drawn as follows: The consecration of the Temple courtyard is like the consecration of Jerusalem. Just as Jerusalem is consecrated with the loaves of a thanks-offering, which is an item that is eaten inside the city, and which, if it emerges from there, is disqualified, so too, the Temple courtyard is consecrated with an item that is eaten inside the courtyard, and which, if it emerges from there, is disqualified. This item is the remainder of a meal-offering, which can be eaten only by a priest and only in the Temple courtyard.

讗讬 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讞诪抓 讗祝 讻讗谉 讞诪抓 讜转住讘专讗 诪谞讞转 讞诪抓 诪讬 讗讬讻讗

The Gemara asks: If the consecration of the Temple courtyard is derived from the consecration of Jerusalem, let us say as follows: Just as there, with regard to the consecration of an addition made to Jerusalem, the loaves used in the ceremony are leavened, so too here, with regard to the consecration of an addition made to the Temple courtyard, the remainder of the meal-offering should be leavened. The Gemara expresses surprise at this suggestion: And how can you understand this? Is there a leavened meal-offering? A meal-offering is always unleavened.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚诪讞诪讬抓 诇讛讜 诇砖讬专讬诐 讜诪拽讚砖 讘讛讜 讜讛讻转讬讘 诇讗 转讗驻讛 讞诪抓 讞诇拽诐 讜讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗驻讬诇讜 讞诇拽诐 诇讗 转讗驻讛 讞诪抓

And if you would say that one leavens the remainder of the meal-offering, which the priests partake of, and he consecrates the Temple courtyard with it, that too is difficult, as isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淚t shall not be baked leavened, for their portion I have given it to them鈥 (Leviticus 6:10)? And Reish Lakish says in explanation of this verse: Even the priests鈥 portion shall not be baked leavened, as it is prohibited to bake even a portion of the meal-offering leavened.

讗诇诪讛 诇讗 讗驻砖专 讚诪拽讚砖 讘砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讘注爪专转 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专

The Gemara asks: Still, why not consecrate the Temple courtyard with a leavened meal-offering? It is possible to consecrate it with the two loaves of bread that are brought as a communal offering on the festival of Shavuot, which is a meal-offering that is leavened. The Gemara answers: Because actually it is not possible to do so.

讛讬讻讬 谞讬注讘讬讚 谞讘谞讬讬讛 诪讗转诪讜诇 讜谞讬拽讚砖讬讛 诪讗转诪讜诇 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讘砖讞讬讟转 讻讘砖讬诐 讛讜讗 讚拽讚砖讬

The Gemara explains why not. How could we do it? If we build the addition to the Temple courtyard on the eve of Shavuot and also consecrate it on the eve of the Festival, there is a difficulty, as the two loaves become consecrated as a meal-offering with the slaughter of the two lambs that are sacrificed together with them as peace-offerings, and this occurs on the Festival itself, not on the eve of the Festival.

谞讘谞讬讬讛 诪讗转诪讜诇 讜谞讬拽讚砖讬讛 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讘注讬谞谉 拽讬讚讜砖 讘砖注转 讛讘谞讬谉

If we build the addition to the Temple courtyard on the eve of the Shavuot festival, but consecrate it only now, on the Festival, this too is difficult, as we require consecration at the time of the completion of the building.

谞讘谞讬讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜谞拽讚砖讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讬谉 讘谞讬谉 诪拽讚砖 讚讜讞讛 讬讜诐 讟讜讘

If we build it on the Festival and consecrate it on the Festival, this also cannot be, as the building of the Temple does not override the Festival.

谞砖讘拽讛 诇讘转专 讛讻讬 讜谞讘谞讬讬讛 讜谞讬拽讚砖讬讛 讗讬驻住讬诇讗 诇讬讛 讘诇讬谞讛

If we leave the two loaves until after the Festival and build the addition to the Temple courtyard on the day after the Festival, and consecrate it by eating the two loaves on that day, this is difficult as well, as the two loaves were already disqualified by virtue of being left overnight after the Festival.

谞讘谞讬讬讛 诪诪注诇讬 讬讜诪讗 讜谞砖讬讬专 讘讬讛 驻讜专转讗 讚注讚 讚拽讚讬砖 讬讜诪讗 诇讗诇转专 谞讙诪专讬讛 讜谞讬拽讚砖讬讛 讗讬谉 讘谞讬谉 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讘诇讬诇讛 讚讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讘谞讬谉 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讘诇讬诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讘讬讜诐 讛拽讬诐 讗转 讛诪砖讻谉 讘讬讜诐 诪拽讬诪讜 讘诇讬诇讛 讗讬谉 诪拽讬诪讜 讛诇讻讱 诇讗 讗驻砖专

If we build the addition to the Temple courtyard on the eve of the Festival and leave a little unbuilt until after the Festival, and as soon as the day is over and the Festival is finished, we immediately finish building the addition and consecrate it with the two loaves before they become disqualified, this too is impossible, as the building of the Temple cannot take place at night. This is as Abaye says: From where is it derived that the building of the Temple cannot take place at night? As it is stated: 鈥淎nd on the day that the Tabernacle was erected鈥 (Numbers 9:15), from which it can be derived: One may erect it during the day, but one may not erect it at night. Therefore, it is impossible to consecrate the Temple courtyard with the two loaves; it must be done with the remainder of an unleavened meal-offering.

讜讘砖讬专 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讬专 砖诇 转讜讚讛 讘讻谞讜专讜转 讜讘谞讘诇讬诐 讜讘爪诇爪诇讬诐 注诇 讻诇 驻讬谞讛 讜驻讬谞讛 讜注诇 讻诇 讗讘谉 讙讚讜诇讛 砖讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讗讜诪专 讗专讜诪诪讱 讛壮 讻讬 讚诇讬转谞讬 讜讙讜壮 讜砖讬专 砖诇 驻讙注讬诐 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬谉 砖讬专 砖诇 谞讙注讬诐

搂 The mishna teaches concerning the consecration of an addition to the city of Jerusalem or the Temple courtyard: And with a song. The Sages taught in a baraita: They sang the song of thanksgiving, i.e., Psalms, chapter 100, which begins: 鈥淎 psalm of thanksgiving,鈥 accompanied by harps, lyres, and cymbals, at every corner and upon every large stone in Jerusalem. And they also recited Psalms, chapter 30, which begins: 鈥淚 will extol You, O Lord, for You have lifted me up,鈥 and the song of evil spirits, i.e., Psalms, chapter 91, which begins: 鈥淗e that dwells in the secret place of the Most High.鈥 And some say that this psalm is called the song of plagues.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚谞讙注讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞讙注 诇讗 讬拽专讘 讘讗讛诇讱 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻讙注讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讬驻诇 诪爪讚讱 讗诇祝

The reason of the one who says that it is called the song of plagues is that it is written: 鈥淣or shall any plague come near your dwelling鈥 (Psalms 91:10). And the reason of the one who says that it is called the song of evil spirits is that it is written: 鈥淎 thousand shall fall at your side and ten thousand at your right hand; but it shall not come near you鈥 (Psalms 91:7).

讜讗讜诪专 讬砖讘 讘住转专 注诇讬讜谉 讘爪诇 砖讚讬 讬转诇讜谞谉 注讚 讻讬 讗转讛 讛壮 诪讞住讬 注诇讬讜谉 砖诪转 诪注讜谞讱 讜讞讜讝专 讜讗讜诪专 诪讝诪讜专 诇讚讜讚 讘讘专讞讜 诪驻谞讬 讗讘砖诇讜诐 讘谞讜 讛壮 诪讛 专讘讜 爪专讬 注讚 诇讛壮 讛讬砖讜注讛 注诇 注诪讱 讘专讻转讱 住诇讛

And they recited the psalm from the verse: 鈥淗e that dwells in the secret place of the Most High shall abide in the shadow of the Almighty鈥 (Psalms 91:1), until they completed the verse: 鈥淏ecause You, O Lord, are my refuge; You have made the most High Your habitation鈥 (Psalms 91:9). And they would then recite Psalms, chapter 3, which begins: 鈥淎 psalm of David, when he fled from Absalom his son. Lord, how many are my enemies become,鈥 until they reached the verse: 鈥淪alvation belongs to the Lord; Your blessing be upon Your people. Sela鈥 (Psalms 3:9), which is the end of that psalm.

专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讛谞讬 拽专讗讬 讜讙讗谞讬 讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗住讜专 诇讛转专驻讗讜转 讘讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 诇讛讙谉 砖讗谞讬

It is related that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi would recite these verses to protect him from evil spirits during the night and fall asleep while saying them. The Gemara asks: How could he do that? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi himself say: One is prohibited from healing himself with words of Torah? The Gemara answers: To protect oneself is different, as he recited these verses only to protect himself from evil spirits, and not to heal himself.

讜讗诇讗 讻讬 讗诪专 讗住讜专 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讻讛 讗讬 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讻讛 讗住讜专 讜转讜 诇讗 讜讛转谞谉 讛诇讜讞砖 注诇 讛诪讻讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 讞诇拽 诇注讜诇诐 讛讘讗 讛讗 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘专讜拽拽 砖谞讜 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪讝讻讬专讬谉 砖诐 砖诪讬诐 注诇 讛专拽讬拽讛

The Gemara challenges: But rather, when Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that this is prohibited, he was referring to a situation where there is already a wound and one recites these verses in order to heal himself. But if there is already a wound and he recites these verses over it, is only this prohibited, and nothing more? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Sanhedrin 90a), that one who whispers an incantation over a wound has no share in the World-to-Come? The Gemara answers: Wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to that mishna that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The mishna was taught with regard to one who spits into the wound and then whispers these verses. And the reason for the severity of this action is that the name of Heaven must not be mentioned in connection with spitting, as doing so is a show of contempt for God.

讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪讛诇讻讬谉 讜砖转讬 转讜讚讜转 讗讞专讬讛谉 讜讻讜壮 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讘讬转 讚讬谉 拽诪讬 转讜讚讛 讗讝诇讬 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讬诇讱 讗讞专讬讛诐 讛讜砖注讬讛 讜讞爪讬 砖专讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪讛诇讻讬谉 讜砖转讬 转讜讚讜转 诪讛诇讻讜转 讜讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讞专讬讛诐

搂 The mishna teaches that as part of the consecration ceremony, the court would move forward, and two thanks-offerings would be brought after them, and all of the Jewish people would follow behind them. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that the members of the court walk in front of the thanks-offering? But isn鈥檛 it written in the verse from which this ceremony is derived: 鈥淎nd I placed two large thanks-offerings, and we went in procession to the right upon the wall, toward the dung gate; and after them went Hoshaiah, and half of the princes of Judah鈥 (Nehemiah 12:31鈥32)? The Gemara answers: This is what the mishna is saying: The court moves forward. And how is this done? The two thanks-offerings move forward, and the court follows after them.

讻讬爪讚 诪讛诇讻讜转 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专讘讬 讞讚 讗诪专 讝讜 讻谞讙讚 讝讜 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讝讜 讗讞专 讝讜 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讝讜 讻谞讙讚 讝讜 讛驻谞讬诪讬转 讛讱 讚诪拽专讘讗 诇讞讜诪讛 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讝讜 讗讞专 讝讜 讛驻谞讬诪讬转 讛讱 讚诪拽专讘讗 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉

The Gemara clarifies this point: How exactly did the two thanks-offerings move forward? Rabbi 岣yya and Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, disagree about this. One Sage says: One thanks-offering alongside the other. And one Sage says: One behind the other. According to the one who says that the two offerings moved one alongside the other, the thanks-offering that the mishna refers to as the inner one is that which is closest to the wall. According to the one who says that the two offerings moved one behind the other, the thanks-offering that is called the inner one is that which is closest to the members of the court advancing behind the thanks-offerings.

转谞谉 讛驻谞讬诪讬转 谞讗讻诇转 讜讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 谞砖专驻转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讝讜 讗讞专 讝讜 讗诪讟讜 诇讛讻讬 驻谞讬诪讬转 谞讗讻诇转 诪砖讜诐 讚讗转讬讗 讞讬爪讜谞讛 拽诪讛 讜拽讚砖讛 诇讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讝讜 讻谞讙讚 讝讜 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 拽讗 诪讬拽讚砖讬

The Gemara analyzes these two opinions: We learned in the mishna: When they would reach the end of the place that they desired to consecrate, the inner thanks-offering would be eaten and the outer one would be burned. Granted, according to the one who says that the two thanks-offerings moved forward one behind the other, and that the inner one is the one that was in the rear, it is due to this that the inner one is eaten, because the outer one came before it and consecrated the additional area, so that it is now a sanctified place fit for the eating of the thanks-offering loaves. But according to the one who says that the two thanks-offerings moved forward one alongside the other, the two of them together consecrated the additional area. Why, then, is the inner one eaten and the outer one burned?

讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讝讜 讗讞专 讝讜 讞讚讗 诪讬 诪讬拽讚砖讗 讛讗 讻诇 砖诇讗 谞注砖讬转 讘讻诇 讗诇讜 转谞谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讗讞转 诪讻诇 讗诇讜 讛谞讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讞讚讗 诪爪讜讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: And according to your reasoning, according to the one who says that the two offerings moved forward one behind the other, does one offering by itself consecrate the area? Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that with regard to any addition that was not made with all these ceremonial procedures, the addition is not consecrated? And even according to the one who says (see 16a) that the correct reading of the mishna is: With regard to any addition that was not made with any one of all these ceremonial procedures, the addition is not consecrated, nevertheless, these two thanks-offerings are one mitzva, and one without the other would not consecrate the area.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan said:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Shevuot 15

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shevuot 15

讜讻谉 转注砖讜 诇讚讜专讜转

and so shall you do鈥 (Exodus 25:9). The final words: 鈥淎nd so shall you do,鈥 are superfluous and serve to teach: As was done in the Tabernacle, so shall you do in future generations.

诪转讬讘 专讘讗 讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 砖注砖讛 诪砖讛 诪砖讬讞转谉 诪拽讚砖转谉 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 注讘讜讚转谉 诪讞谞讻转谉 讜讗诪讗讬 讜谞讬诪讗 讜讻谉 转注砖讜 诇讚讜专讜转

Rava raises an objection from a baraita: With regard to all the sacred vessels that Moses fashioned, their anointment with oil consecrates them. From that point forward, in the generations after Moses, new vessels do not require anointment to be consecrated; rather, their use in the Temple service initiates them and renders them fit for use. Rava clarifies the objection: But why is this so? Let us say here as well that the phrase 鈥渁nd so shall you do鈥 teaches that the same must be done in future generations.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬诪砖讞诐 讜讬拽讚砖 讗转诐 讗讜转诐 讘诪砖讬讞讛 讜诇讗 诇讚讜专讜转 讘诪砖讬讞讛

The Gemara answers: It is different there, as the verse states with regard to the Tabernacle and its vessels: 鈥淎nd he anointed them and consecrated them鈥 (Numbers 7:1). This teaches that it is only 鈥渢hem,鈥 the vessels fashioned by Moses, that are consecrated through anointment, but vessels fashioned in later generations are not consecrated through anointment.

讗讬诪讗 讗讜转诐 讘诪砖讬讞讛 诇讚讜专讜转 讗讜 讘诪砖讬讞讛 讗讜 讘注讘讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗砖专 讬砖专转讜 讘诐 讘拽讚砖 转诇讗谉 讛讻转讜讘 讘砖讬专讜转

The Gemara asks: Why not say: 鈥淭hem,鈥 the vessels made by Moses, he consecrated specifically through anointment, but vessels made in future generations are consecrated either through anointment or through their initial service? Rav Pappa said: The verse states: 鈥淎nd they shall take all the service vessels, with which they will serve in the Sanctuary鈥 (Numbers 4:12). The future tense 鈥渢hey will serve,鈥 indicates that the verse is referring to future vessels, and the verse makes them dependent upon service, teaching that in future generations vessels will be consecrated through their initial service.

讛砖转讗 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讗砖专 讬砖专转讜 讗讜转诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗讬 诇讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讗讜转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 讛讜讗 讚讘诪砖讬讞讛 诇讚讜专讜转 讘诪砖讬讞讛 讜讘注讘讜讚讛 讚讛讗 讻转讘 讜讻谉 转注砖讜 诪讬注讟 专讞诪谞讗 讗讜转诐 讗讜转诐 讘诪砖讬讞讛 讜诇讗 诇讚讜专讜转 讘诪砖讬讞讛

The Gemara asks: Now that the Merciful One has written 鈥渨ith which they will serve,鈥 why do I need the restrictive term 鈥渢hem鈥? The Gemara answers: Had the Merciful One not written 鈥渢hem,鈥 I would say that they, the vessels made by Moses, were consecrated through anointment alone, but vessels made in later generations must be consecrated both through anointment and through service, as the Torah wrote: 鈥淎nd so shall you do,鈥 referring to future generations. Therefore, the Merciful One excluded future vessels from anointment by stating 鈥渢hem,鈥 teaching that it is only them that were consecrated through anointment, but in later generations they are not consecrated through anointment.

讜讘砖转讬 转讜讚讜转 转谞讗 砖转讬 转讜讚讜转 砖讗诪专讜 讘诇讞诪谉 讜诇讗 讘讘砖专谉 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗注诪讬讚讛 砖转讬 转讜讚转 讙讚讜诇转 讜转讛诇讻转 诇讬诪讬谉 诪注诇 诇讞讜诪讛

搂 The mishna teaches: And with two thanks-offerings. A tanna taught in a baraita: And with regard to the two thanks-offerings that are mentioned here, the reference is to their loaves, but not to their flesh. An animal thanks-offering is accompanied by forty loaves of bread that are brought as a meal-offering. Ten loaves are leavened, and the remainder is comprised of ten each of three types of unleavened bread. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav 岣sda said: As the verse states with regard to the consecration of the wall of Jerusalem in the days of Ezra: 鈥淎nd I placed two large thanks-offerings, and we went in procession to the right upon the wall鈥 (Nehemiah 12:31).

诪讗讬 讙讚讜诇讜转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪诪讬谉 讙讚讜诇 诪诪砖 谞讬诪讗 驻专讬诐 讗诇讗 讙讚讜诇讜转 讘诪讬谞谉

The Gemara clarifies the meaning of this verse: What is meant by 鈥渓arge鈥? If we say that the animals of the thanks-offering were literally from a large species, i.e., oxen, rather than from a small species, i.e., sheep, let the verse state that they were oxen. Rather, let us say that he took animals from among the largest and the finest quality of their species.

诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讞砖讬讘讜转讗 拽诪讬 砖诪讬讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 谞讗诪专 讘注讜诇转 讘讛诪讛 讗砖讛 专讬讞 谞讬讞讞 讘注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 讗砖讛 专讬讞 谞讬讞讞 讘诪谞讞讛 讗砖讛 专讬讞 谞讬讞讞 诪诇诪讚 砖讗讞讚 讛诪专讘讛 讜讗讞讚 讛诪诪注讬讟 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬讻讜讬谉 讗转 诇讘讜 诇讗讘讬讜 砖讘砖诪讬诐

The Gemara challenges this: Is the size of the offering of any importance before Heaven? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a mishna (Mena岣t 110a): It is stated with regard to an animal burnt-offering: 鈥淎 fire offering, a pleasing aroma鈥 (Leviticus 1:9), and it is also stated with regard to a bird burnt-offering: 鈥淎 fire offering, a pleasing aroma鈥 (Leviticus 1:17), and it is also stated with regard to a meal-offering: 鈥淎 fire offering, a pleasing aroma鈥 (Leviticus 2:2). The same term is used in all three cases even though the three offerings are of different value. This teaches that one who brings a substantial sacrifice and one who brings a modest sacrifice have equal merit, and both offerings are accepted as having a pleasing aroma, provided that one directs his heart to his Father in Heaven.

讗诇讗 讙讚讜诇讛 砖讘转讜讚讛 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讞诪抓 讚转谞谉 讛转讜讚讛 讛讬转讛 讘讗讛 诪谉 讞诪砖 住讗讬谉 讬专讜砖诇诪讬讜转 砖讛谉 砖砖 诪讚讘专讬讜转 砖讛谉 砖转讬 讗讬驻讜转 讜讛讗讬驻讛 砖诇砖 住讗讬谉 注砖专讬诐 注砖专讜谉 注砖专讛 诇讞诪抓 讜注砖专讛 诇诪爪讛 讜讘诪爪讛 砖诇砖讛 诪讬谞讬谉 讞诇讜转 专拽讬拽讬谉 讜专讘讜讻讛

Rather, let us say that 鈥渓arge thanks-offerings鈥 means the larger element in the thanks-offering loaves. And what is that? The leavened loaves, as we learned in a mishna (Mena岣t 76b): The meal part of the thanks-offering came from five Jerusalem se鈥檃 of flour, which are equivalent to six wilderness se鈥檃. The se鈥檃 referred to in the Bible when the Jewish people were in the wilderness is smaller than the se鈥檃 used later in Jerusalem. This is equivalent to two ephahs, each ephah being three wilderness se鈥檃. These two ephahs are twenty measures of a tenth of an ephah. Ten of these tenths were used to make leavened loaves and ten of these tenths were used to make unleavened loaves. And the unleavened loaves were of three types: Loaves of matza, wafers, and measures of flour mixed with water and oil. Accordingly, the leavened loaves were three times the size of the unleavened ones, and it was the leavened loaves that were used to consecrate additions to the city.

讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讗讬谉 讛注讝专讛 诪转拽讚砖转 讗诇讗 讘砖讬专讬 诪谞讞讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诪讛 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讚讘专 讛谞讗讻诇 讘讛 诪拽讚砖讛 讗祝 注讝专讛 讚讘专 讛谞讗讻诇 讘讛 诪拽讚砖讛

Rami bar 岣ma says: One can infer from this baraita that the Temple courtyard is consecrated only with the remainder of the meal-offering, and not by the loaves of a thanks-offering. The remainder of the meal-offering is the part left over after a handful of it and its frankincense have been sacrificed on the altar; this remainder is eaten by a priest. What is the reason for this? The consecration of the Temple courtyard is like the consecration of Jerusalem. Just as with regard to Jerusalem, an item that is eaten specifically in it, i.e., the loaves of a thanks-offering, which are eaten anywhere in the city, consecrates the city, so too, with regard to the Temple courtyard, an item that is eaten specifically in it, i.e., the remainder of the meal-offering, consecrates the courtyard.

讗讟讜 诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 讘注讝专讛 诪讬 诇讗 诪转讗讻诇讬 讗诇讗 讻讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诪讛 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讚讘专 讛谞讗讻诇 讘讛 讜讬讜爪讗 诪诪谞讛 谞驻住诇 讗祝 注讝专讛 讚讘专 讛谞讗讻诇 讘讛 讜讛讬讜爪讗 诪诪谞讛 谞驻住诇

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the loaves of a thanks-offering are not eaten in the Temple courtyard? Rather, the comparison should be drawn as follows: The consecration of the Temple courtyard is like the consecration of Jerusalem. Just as Jerusalem is consecrated with the loaves of a thanks-offering, which is an item that is eaten inside the city, and which, if it emerges from there, is disqualified, so too, the Temple courtyard is consecrated with an item that is eaten inside the courtyard, and which, if it emerges from there, is disqualified. This item is the remainder of a meal-offering, which can be eaten only by a priest and only in the Temple courtyard.

讗讬 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讞诪抓 讗祝 讻讗谉 讞诪抓 讜转住讘专讗 诪谞讞转 讞诪抓 诪讬 讗讬讻讗

The Gemara asks: If the consecration of the Temple courtyard is derived from the consecration of Jerusalem, let us say as follows: Just as there, with regard to the consecration of an addition made to Jerusalem, the loaves used in the ceremony are leavened, so too here, with regard to the consecration of an addition made to the Temple courtyard, the remainder of the meal-offering should be leavened. The Gemara expresses surprise at this suggestion: And how can you understand this? Is there a leavened meal-offering? A meal-offering is always unleavened.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚诪讞诪讬抓 诇讛讜 诇砖讬专讬诐 讜诪拽讚砖 讘讛讜 讜讛讻转讬讘 诇讗 转讗驻讛 讞诪抓 讞诇拽诐 讜讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗驻讬诇讜 讞诇拽诐 诇讗 转讗驻讛 讞诪抓

And if you would say that one leavens the remainder of the meal-offering, which the priests partake of, and he consecrates the Temple courtyard with it, that too is difficult, as isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淚t shall not be baked leavened, for their portion I have given it to them鈥 (Leviticus 6:10)? And Reish Lakish says in explanation of this verse: Even the priests鈥 portion shall not be baked leavened, as it is prohibited to bake even a portion of the meal-offering leavened.

讗诇诪讛 诇讗 讗驻砖专 讚诪拽讚砖 讘砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讘注爪专转 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专

The Gemara asks: Still, why not consecrate the Temple courtyard with a leavened meal-offering? It is possible to consecrate it with the two loaves of bread that are brought as a communal offering on the festival of Shavuot, which is a meal-offering that is leavened. The Gemara answers: Because actually it is not possible to do so.

讛讬讻讬 谞讬注讘讬讚 谞讘谞讬讬讛 诪讗转诪讜诇 讜谞讬拽讚砖讬讛 诪讗转诪讜诇 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讘砖讞讬讟转 讻讘砖讬诐 讛讜讗 讚拽讚砖讬

The Gemara explains why not. How could we do it? If we build the addition to the Temple courtyard on the eve of Shavuot and also consecrate it on the eve of the Festival, there is a difficulty, as the two loaves become consecrated as a meal-offering with the slaughter of the two lambs that are sacrificed together with them as peace-offerings, and this occurs on the Festival itself, not on the eve of the Festival.

谞讘谞讬讬讛 诪讗转诪讜诇 讜谞讬拽讚砖讬讛 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讘注讬谞谉 拽讬讚讜砖 讘砖注转 讛讘谞讬谉

If we build the addition to the Temple courtyard on the eve of the Shavuot festival, but consecrate it only now, on the Festival, this too is difficult, as we require consecration at the time of the completion of the building.

谞讘谞讬讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜谞拽讚砖讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讬谉 讘谞讬谉 诪拽讚砖 讚讜讞讛 讬讜诐 讟讜讘

If we build it on the Festival and consecrate it on the Festival, this also cannot be, as the building of the Temple does not override the Festival.

谞砖讘拽讛 诇讘转专 讛讻讬 讜谞讘谞讬讬讛 讜谞讬拽讚砖讬讛 讗讬驻住讬诇讗 诇讬讛 讘诇讬谞讛

If we leave the two loaves until after the Festival and build the addition to the Temple courtyard on the day after the Festival, and consecrate it by eating the two loaves on that day, this is difficult as well, as the two loaves were already disqualified by virtue of being left overnight after the Festival.

谞讘谞讬讬讛 诪诪注诇讬 讬讜诪讗 讜谞砖讬讬专 讘讬讛 驻讜专转讗 讚注讚 讚拽讚讬砖 讬讜诪讗 诇讗诇转专 谞讙诪专讬讛 讜谞讬拽讚砖讬讛 讗讬谉 讘谞讬谉 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讘诇讬诇讛 讚讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讘谞讬谉 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讘诇讬诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讘讬讜诐 讛拽讬诐 讗转 讛诪砖讻谉 讘讬讜诐 诪拽讬诪讜 讘诇讬诇讛 讗讬谉 诪拽讬诪讜 讛诇讻讱 诇讗 讗驻砖专

If we build the addition to the Temple courtyard on the eve of the Festival and leave a little unbuilt until after the Festival, and as soon as the day is over and the Festival is finished, we immediately finish building the addition and consecrate it with the two loaves before they become disqualified, this too is impossible, as the building of the Temple cannot take place at night. This is as Abaye says: From where is it derived that the building of the Temple cannot take place at night? As it is stated: 鈥淎nd on the day that the Tabernacle was erected鈥 (Numbers 9:15), from which it can be derived: One may erect it during the day, but one may not erect it at night. Therefore, it is impossible to consecrate the Temple courtyard with the two loaves; it must be done with the remainder of an unleavened meal-offering.

讜讘砖讬专 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讬专 砖诇 转讜讚讛 讘讻谞讜专讜转 讜讘谞讘诇讬诐 讜讘爪诇爪诇讬诐 注诇 讻诇 驻讬谞讛 讜驻讬谞讛 讜注诇 讻诇 讗讘谉 讙讚讜诇讛 砖讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讗讜诪专 讗专讜诪诪讱 讛壮 讻讬 讚诇讬转谞讬 讜讙讜壮 讜砖讬专 砖诇 驻讙注讬诐 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬谉 砖讬专 砖诇 谞讙注讬诐

搂 The mishna teaches concerning the consecration of an addition to the city of Jerusalem or the Temple courtyard: And with a song. The Sages taught in a baraita: They sang the song of thanksgiving, i.e., Psalms, chapter 100, which begins: 鈥淎 psalm of thanksgiving,鈥 accompanied by harps, lyres, and cymbals, at every corner and upon every large stone in Jerusalem. And they also recited Psalms, chapter 30, which begins: 鈥淚 will extol You, O Lord, for You have lifted me up,鈥 and the song of evil spirits, i.e., Psalms, chapter 91, which begins: 鈥淗e that dwells in the secret place of the Most High.鈥 And some say that this psalm is called the song of plagues.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚谞讙注讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞讙注 诇讗 讬拽专讘 讘讗讛诇讱 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻讙注讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讬驻诇 诪爪讚讱 讗诇祝

The reason of the one who says that it is called the song of plagues is that it is written: 鈥淣or shall any plague come near your dwelling鈥 (Psalms 91:10). And the reason of the one who says that it is called the song of evil spirits is that it is written: 鈥淎 thousand shall fall at your side and ten thousand at your right hand; but it shall not come near you鈥 (Psalms 91:7).

讜讗讜诪专 讬砖讘 讘住转专 注诇讬讜谉 讘爪诇 砖讚讬 讬转诇讜谞谉 注讚 讻讬 讗转讛 讛壮 诪讞住讬 注诇讬讜谉 砖诪转 诪注讜谞讱 讜讞讜讝专 讜讗讜诪专 诪讝诪讜专 诇讚讜讚 讘讘专讞讜 诪驻谞讬 讗讘砖诇讜诐 讘谞讜 讛壮 诪讛 专讘讜 爪专讬 注讚 诇讛壮 讛讬砖讜注讛 注诇 注诪讱 讘专讻转讱 住诇讛

And they recited the psalm from the verse: 鈥淗e that dwells in the secret place of the Most High shall abide in the shadow of the Almighty鈥 (Psalms 91:1), until they completed the verse: 鈥淏ecause You, O Lord, are my refuge; You have made the most High Your habitation鈥 (Psalms 91:9). And they would then recite Psalms, chapter 3, which begins: 鈥淎 psalm of David, when he fled from Absalom his son. Lord, how many are my enemies become,鈥 until they reached the verse: 鈥淪alvation belongs to the Lord; Your blessing be upon Your people. Sela鈥 (Psalms 3:9), which is the end of that psalm.

专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讛谞讬 拽专讗讬 讜讙讗谞讬 讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗住讜专 诇讛转专驻讗讜转 讘讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 诇讛讙谉 砖讗谞讬

It is related that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi would recite these verses to protect him from evil spirits during the night and fall asleep while saying them. The Gemara asks: How could he do that? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi himself say: One is prohibited from healing himself with words of Torah? The Gemara answers: To protect oneself is different, as he recited these verses only to protect himself from evil spirits, and not to heal himself.

讜讗诇讗 讻讬 讗诪专 讗住讜专 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讻讛 讗讬 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讻讛 讗住讜专 讜转讜 诇讗 讜讛转谞谉 讛诇讜讞砖 注诇 讛诪讻讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 讞诇拽 诇注讜诇诐 讛讘讗 讛讗 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘专讜拽拽 砖谞讜 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪讝讻讬专讬谉 砖诐 砖诪讬诐 注诇 讛专拽讬拽讛

The Gemara challenges: But rather, when Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that this is prohibited, he was referring to a situation where there is already a wound and one recites these verses in order to heal himself. But if there is already a wound and he recites these verses over it, is only this prohibited, and nothing more? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Sanhedrin 90a), that one who whispers an incantation over a wound has no share in the World-to-Come? The Gemara answers: Wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to that mishna that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The mishna was taught with regard to one who spits into the wound and then whispers these verses. And the reason for the severity of this action is that the name of Heaven must not be mentioned in connection with spitting, as doing so is a show of contempt for God.

讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪讛诇讻讬谉 讜砖转讬 转讜讚讜转 讗讞专讬讛谉 讜讻讜壮 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讘讬转 讚讬谉 拽诪讬 转讜讚讛 讗讝诇讬 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讬诇讱 讗讞专讬讛诐 讛讜砖注讬讛 讜讞爪讬 砖专讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪讛诇讻讬谉 讜砖转讬 转讜讚讜转 诪讛诇讻讜转 讜讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讞专讬讛诐

搂 The mishna teaches that as part of the consecration ceremony, the court would move forward, and two thanks-offerings would be brought after them, and all of the Jewish people would follow behind them. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that the members of the court walk in front of the thanks-offering? But isn鈥檛 it written in the verse from which this ceremony is derived: 鈥淎nd I placed two large thanks-offerings, and we went in procession to the right upon the wall, toward the dung gate; and after them went Hoshaiah, and half of the princes of Judah鈥 (Nehemiah 12:31鈥32)? The Gemara answers: This is what the mishna is saying: The court moves forward. And how is this done? The two thanks-offerings move forward, and the court follows after them.

讻讬爪讚 诪讛诇讻讜转 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专讘讬 讞讚 讗诪专 讝讜 讻谞讙讚 讝讜 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讝讜 讗讞专 讝讜 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讝讜 讻谞讙讚 讝讜 讛驻谞讬诪讬转 讛讱 讚诪拽专讘讗 诇讞讜诪讛 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讝讜 讗讞专 讝讜 讛驻谞讬诪讬转 讛讱 讚诪拽专讘讗 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉

The Gemara clarifies this point: How exactly did the two thanks-offerings move forward? Rabbi 岣yya and Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, disagree about this. One Sage says: One thanks-offering alongside the other. And one Sage says: One behind the other. According to the one who says that the two offerings moved one alongside the other, the thanks-offering that the mishna refers to as the inner one is that which is closest to the wall. According to the one who says that the two offerings moved one behind the other, the thanks-offering that is called the inner one is that which is closest to the members of the court advancing behind the thanks-offerings.

转谞谉 讛驻谞讬诪讬转 谞讗讻诇转 讜讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 谞砖专驻转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讝讜 讗讞专 讝讜 讗诪讟讜 诇讛讻讬 驻谞讬诪讬转 谞讗讻诇转 诪砖讜诐 讚讗转讬讗 讞讬爪讜谞讛 拽诪讛 讜拽讚砖讛 诇讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讝讜 讻谞讙讚 讝讜 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 拽讗 诪讬拽讚砖讬

The Gemara analyzes these two opinions: We learned in the mishna: When they would reach the end of the place that they desired to consecrate, the inner thanks-offering would be eaten and the outer one would be burned. Granted, according to the one who says that the two thanks-offerings moved forward one behind the other, and that the inner one is the one that was in the rear, it is due to this that the inner one is eaten, because the outer one came before it and consecrated the additional area, so that it is now a sanctified place fit for the eating of the thanks-offering loaves. But according to the one who says that the two thanks-offerings moved forward one alongside the other, the two of them together consecrated the additional area. Why, then, is the inner one eaten and the outer one burned?

讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讝讜 讗讞专 讝讜 讞讚讗 诪讬 诪讬拽讚砖讗 讛讗 讻诇 砖诇讗 谞注砖讬转 讘讻诇 讗诇讜 转谞谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讗讞转 诪讻诇 讗诇讜 讛谞讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讞讚讗 诪爪讜讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: And according to your reasoning, according to the one who says that the two offerings moved forward one behind the other, does one offering by itself consecrate the area? Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that with regard to any addition that was not made with all these ceremonial procedures, the addition is not consecrated? And even according to the one who says (see 16a) that the correct reading of the mishna is: With regard to any addition that was not made with any one of all these ceremonial procedures, the addition is not consecrated, nevertheless, these two thanks-offerings are one mitzva, and one without the other would not consecrate the area.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan said:

Scroll To Top