Shevuot 16

על פי נביא נאכלת ועל פי נביא נשרפת

Based on a ruling of a prophet the loaves of one thanks-offering were eaten, and based on a ruling of a prophet the loaves of the other thanks-offering were burned. The prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, who lived at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah’s reconsecration of Jerusalem, instructed the people concerning how the ceremony should be conducted, without providing reasons for the procedures.

כל שלא נעשית בכל אלו כו׳ איתמר רב הונא אמר בכל אלו תנן רב נחמן אמר באחת מכל אלו תנן

§ The mishna teaches: And with regard to any addition to the Temple that was not made with all these ceremonial procedures, one who enters there while ritually impure is not liable. It was stated that amora’im disagreed about the text of the mishna. Rav Huna says: We learned in the mishna: With all these, which means that all of these procedures are indispensable, and if even one is missing, the consecration does not take effect. Rav Naḥman says: We learned in the mishna: With one of all these; i.e., any one of these procedures suffices for the consecration to take effect.

רב הונא אמר בכל אלו תנן קסבר קדושה ראשונה קידשה לשעתה וקידשה לעתיד לבא ועזרא זכר בעלמא הוא דעבד

The Gemara further clarifies this disagreement. Rav Huna says: We learned in the mishna: With all these. The Gemara explains: He maintains that the initial consecration of the Temple in the days of David and Solomon sanctified it for its time and sanctified it forever. Therefore, the site of the Temple retained its original sanctity even during the days of the Second Temple. And Ezra, who reconsecrated the area, did so merely as a commemoration of the initial consecration. Accordingly, even though there was no king or Urim VeTummim, the entire area was fully consecrated. By contrast, in order to consecrate an area that had not been part of the initial consecration, all of these procedures are necessary and none can be omitted.

רב נחמן אמר באחת מכל אלו תנן קסבר קדושה ראשונה קידשה לשעתה ולא קידשה לעתיד לבא ועזרא קדושי קדיש אף על גב דלא הוו אורים ותומים

Rav Naḥman says: We learned in the mishna: With one of all these. The Gemara explains: He maintains that the initial consecration of the Temple sanctified it for its time only, and did not sanctify it forever. And Ezra consecrated the Temple and its courtyards, even though there was no king or Urim VeTummim. Consequently, it follows that there is no need for all of these procedures in order for the consecration to take effect.

איתיביה רבא לרב נחמן כל שלא נעשית בכל אלו תני באחת מכל אלו

Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman: The mishna explicitly states: Any addition that was not made with all these procedures. Rav Naḥman said to him: Emend the mishna and teach it as stating: With one of all these procedures.

תא שמע אבא שאול אומר שני ביצעין היו בהר המשחה תחתונה ועליונה תחתונה נתקדשה בכל אלו עליונה לא נתקדשה בכל אלו אלא בעולי גולה שלא במלך ושלא באורים ותומים

The Gemara cites a proof against the opinion of Rav Naḥman: Come and hear a baraita: Abba Shaul says: There were two ponds [bitzin] on the Mount of Olives [Har HaMishḥa], a lower pond and an upper pond. The lower pond was consecrated during the time of the First Temple with all the procedures mentioned in the mishna, and it has the sanctity of Jerusalem for all purposes. By contrast, the upper pond was not consecrated with all these procedures, but rather it was consecrated by those who returned from the exile in Babylonia, without a king and without the Urim VeTummim.

תחתונה שהיתה קדושתה גמורה עמי הארץ נכנסין לשם ואוכלין שם קדשים קלים אבל לא מעשר שני וחברים אוכלים שם קדשים קלים ומעשר שני

The baraita continues: With regard to the lower pond, whose consecration was complete, amei ha’aretz, uneducated people who were not scrupulous in their observance of the mitzvot relating to tithes and to ritual purity, would enter into there and would partake of offerings of lesser sanctity that may be eaten in all of Jerusalem there, but they would not partake of second tithe there because they conducted themselves stringently concerning this matter. And ḥaverim, who were meticulous in their observance of those mitzvot, would partake of both offerings of lesser sanctity and second tithe there.

עליונה שלא היתה קדושתה גמורה עמי הארץ היו נכנסין שם ואוכלין שם קדשים קלים אבל לא מעשר שני וחברים אין אוכלין שם לא קדשים קלים ולא מעשר שני ומפני מה לא קידשוה שאין מוסיפין על העיר ועל העזרות אלא במלך ונביא ואורים ותומים ובסנהדרין של שבעים ואחד ובשתי תודות ובשיר

The baraita continues: As for the upper pond, whose consecration was incomplete, amei ha’aretz would enter into there and partake of offerings of lesser sanctity there, but they would not partake of second tithe there. And ḥaverim would partake of neither offerings of lesser sanctity nor second tithe there. And for what reason did they not consecrate the upper pond? It was because additions can be made to the city of Jerusalem or to the Temple courtyards only by a special body comprising the king, a prophet, the Urim VeTummim, and the Sanhedrin of seventy-one, and with two thanks-offerings and with a special song.

ולמה קידשוה למה קידשוה הא אמרת לא קידשוה אלא למה הכניסוה מפני שתורפה של ירושלים היתה ונוחה היא ליכבש משם

The Gemara asks: But why did they consecrate the upper pond if they could not do so properly? This Gemara responds: Why did they consecrate it? Didn’t you say that they did not consecrate it? Rather, the question should be asked as follows: Given that they could not consecrate the upper pond, why did they bring it within the walls of the city? The Gemara answers: Because it was a weak point [turpa] of Jerusalem and it would have been easy to conquer the city from there, it became necessary to include it within the wall. This baraita seems to present explicit proof against the opinion of Rav Naḥman, who holds that there is no need for all of the procedures listed in the mishna in order for the consecration to be complete.

תנאי היא דתניא אמר רבי אליעזר שמעתי כשהיו בונין בהיכל עשו קלעים להיכל וקלעים לעזרות אלא שבהיכל בונין מבחוץ ובעזרות בונין מבפנים

The Gemara rejects this proof: This is a dispute between tanna’im as to whether the initial consecration of Jerusalem and the Temple sanctified them only for their time or forever. Abba Shaul maintains that the initial consecration lapsed, and therefore the reconsecration required all of the procedures mentioned in the mishna. Where is this dispute taught? As it is taught in a mishna (Eduyyot 8:6): Rabbi Eliezer says: I heard that when they were building the Sanctuary in the Second Temple, they fashioned temporary curtains for the Sanctuary and temporary curtains for the courtyards to serve as partitions until the construction of the stone walls was completed. The difference was only that in the Sanctuary, the workers built the walls outside the curtains, without entering, and in the courtyards, the workers built the walls within the curtains.

אמר רבי יהושע שמעתי שמקריבין אף על פי שאין בית אוכלין קדשי קדשים אף על פי שאין קלעים קדשים קלים ומעשר שני אף על פי שאין חומה מפני שקדושה ראשונה קידשה לשעתה וקידשה לעתיד לבא לאו מכלל דרבי אליעזר סבר לא קידשה לעתיד לבא

The mishna continues: Rabbi Yehoshua says: I heard that one sacrifices offerings on the altar even if there is no Temple, and one partakes of offerings of the most sacred order in the Temple courtyard even if there are no curtains, and one partakes of offerings of lesser sanctity and second-tithe produce in Jerusalem even if there is no wall surrounding the city. This is due to the fact that the initial consecration sanctified the Temple and Jerusalem for their time and also sanctified them forever. The Gemara concludes: From the fact that Rabbi Yehoshua based his opinion on the principle that the initial consecration sanctified the Temple and Jerusalem forever, can one not learn by inference that Rabbi Eliezer maintains that it did not sanctify them forever? Apparently, this issue is the subject of a dispute between tanna’im.

אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי ממאי דלמא דכולי עלמא קדושה ראשונה קידשה לשעתה וקידשה לעתיד לבא ומר מאי דשמיע ליה קאמר ומר מאי דשמיע ליה קאמר וכי תימא קלעים לרבי אליעזר למה לי לצניעותא בעלמא

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: From where do you draw this inference? Perhaps everyone maintains that the initial consecration sanctified the Temple and Jerusalem for their time and also sanctified them 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 do I need curtains at all according to Rabbi Eliezer? The original sanctity remained when Jerusalem was not surrounded by walls, and similarly, the presence or absence of curtains is irrelevant to the sanctity of the Temple area. The Gemara answers: The curtains 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 הני תנאי דתניא אמר רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי למה מנו חכמים את אלו שכשעלו בני הגולה מצאו אלו וקידשום אבל ראשונות בטלו משבטלה הארץ אלמא קסבר קדושה ראשונה קידשה לשעתה ולא קידשה לעתיד לבא

Rather, this matter is subject to a dispute between these tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the walled cities listed in the mishna in tractate Arakhin (32a): Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: Why did the Sages enumerate specifically these nine cities as cities that were walled since the days of Joshua, son of Nun? In fact, there were many more. The reason is that when the exiles ascended to Eretz Yisrael from Babylonia in the time of Ezra, they found these cities and consecrated them as walled cities; but the sanctity of the first walled cities, enumerated in the book of Joshua, was nullified when settlement in Eretz Yisrael was negated and the Jewish people were exiled. The Gemara comments: Apparently, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, maintains: The initial consecration sanctified the Temple and Jerusalem for their time only and did not sanctify them forever.

ורמינהי אמר רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי וכי אלו בלבד היו והלא כבר נאמר ששים עיר כל חבל ארגב ממלכת עוג בבשן כל אלה ערים בצרות חומה גבהה אלא למה מנו חכמים את אלו שכשעלו בני הגולה מצאו אלו וקידשום

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a different baraita: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, says: Were these cities that are enumerated in tractate Arakhin the only walled cities? But isn’t it already stated: “Sixty cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og, king of Bashan, all these were cities fortified with high walls, gates and bars” (Deuteronomy 3:4–5), indicating that there were many walled cities in the time of Joshua? Rather, why then did the Sages enumerate specifically these cities? It is due to the fact that when the exiles ascended from Babylonia they found these and consecrated them as walled cities.

קידשום השתא הא אמרינן לקמן דלא צריכא לקדושי אלא מצאו אלו ומנאום

The Gemara asks: They consecrated them? If their sanctity remained, it should not have been necessary to consecrate them. Now, don’t we say later in the same baraita that it is not necessary to consecrate them? The Gemara clarifies: Rather, this is what the baraita means to say: When the exiles ascended from Babylonia they found these and enumerated them.

ולא אלו בלבד אלא כל שתעלה בידך מסורת מאבותיך שמוקפת חומה מימות יהושע בן נון כל מצות אלו נוהגות בה מפני שקדושה ראשונה קידשה לשעתה וקידשה לעתיד לבא קשיא דרבי ישמעאל בר יוסי אדרבי ישמעאל בר יוסי

The baraita continues: And not only these, but in any city with regard to which you receive a tradition from your ancestors that it was surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua, son of Nun, all these mitzvot with regard to walled cities are observed in it, due to the fact that the initial consecration sanctified the Temple and Jerusalem for their time and sanctified them forever. The Gemara comments: This is difficult, as there is a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yishmael bar Yosei and another statement of Rabbi Yishmael bar Yosei.

איבעית אימא תרי תנאי אליבא דרבי ישמעאל בר יוסי איבעית אימא חדא מינייהו רבי אלעזר בר יוסי אמרה דתניא רבי אלעזר בר יוסי אומר אשר לוא חמה אף על פי שאין לו עכשיו והיה לו קודם לכן

The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that there are two tanna’im who disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael bar Yosei. Each transmitted Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion in a different manner. And if you wish, say instead that one of the traditions is mistaken, as one of the baraitot was stated by Rabbi Elazar bar Yosei, and not his brother, Rabbi Yishmael. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar bar Yosei says that the verse with regard to walled cities states: “Which has [lo] a wall” (Leviticus 25:30). The word lo is written with an alef, meaning no, and accordingly the verse would be stating to the contrary, that the city does not have a wall, but its vocalization is in the sense of its homonym, lo with a vav, meaning that it has a wall. This indicates that even if it does not presently have a wall but it had a wall previously, it retains its status as a walled city. It is Rabbi Elazar bar Yosei who maintains that the first consecration sanctified the Temple and Jerusalem forever.

נטמא בעזרה ונעלמה ממנו טומאה וכו׳ טומאה בעזרה מנלן אמר רבי אלעזר כתוב אחד אומר את משכן ה׳ טמא וכתוב אחד אומר כי את מקדש ה׳ טמא אם אינו ענין לטומאה שבחוץ תנהו ענין לטומאה שבפנים

§ The mishna teaches about one who was ritually pure when he entered the Temple but who became impure while in the Temple courtyard, and afterward his impurity was hidden from him. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that one is liable even if he contracted impurity in the Temple courtyard and failed to leave immediately by way of the shortest route, and not only if he entered the Temple courtyard when he was already impure? Rabbi Elazar says: One verse states: “He has defiled the Tabernacle of the Lord” (Numbers 19:13), and one verse states: “For he has defiled the Temple of the Lord” (Numbers 19:20). If this second verse is not needed for the matter of one who contracted impurity outside before he entered the Temple courtyard, as this situation is already referred to in the previous verse, apply it to the matter of one who contracted impurity inside the Temple courtyard.

וקראי מיתרי הא מיצרך צריכי דתניא רבי אלעזר אומר אם נאמר משכן למה נאמר מקדש ואם נאמר מקדש למה נאמר משכן אילו נאמר משכן ולא נאמר מקדש הייתי אומר על משכן יהא חייב שהרי משוח בשמן המשחה ועל מקדש לא יהא חייב ואם נאמר מקדש ולא נאמר משכן הייתי אומר על מקדש יהא חייב שהרי קדושתו קדושת עולם ועל משכן לא יהא חייב לכך נאמר משכן לכך נאמר מקדש

The Gemara asks: But is it really superfluous to have both of these verses, one having been sufficient? Aren’t they each necessary to teach a novel ruling? As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar says: If it is stated: “Tabernacle,” why does it state: “Temple”? And if it is stated: “Temple,” why does it state: “Tabernacle”? He explains: Had the verse stated only: “Tabernacle,” and not stated: “Temple,” I would have said that one is liable for entering the Tabernacle in a state of impurity, since it was anointed with the anointing oil, and therefore it carries greater sanctity, but he is not liable for entering the Temple, which was not anointed with the anointing oil. And had the verse stated only: “Temple,” and not stated: “Tabernacle,” I would have said that one is liable for entering the Temple in a state of impurity, since its sanctity is an eternal sanctity, but he is not liable for entering the Tabernacle, whose sanctity was only for its time. For this reason, it is stated: “Tabernacle,” and for this reason, it is stated: “Temple.”

רבי אלעזר הכי קא קשיא ליה מכדי משכן איקרי מקדש ומקדש איקרי משכן נכתוב או אידי ואידי מקדש או אידי ואידי משכן משכן ומקדש למה לי שמע מינה תרתי

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Elazar did not base his derivation on a superfluous verse, but on the change in wording between the two verses. This is what is difficult for him: Since the Tabernacle is also called Temple and the Temple is also called Tabernacle, then let the verse write either in both verses: Temple, or in both verses: Tabernacle; why do I need both “Tabernacle” and “Temple”? Conclude two conclusions from it, i.e., that one is liable even for impurity contracted inside the grounds, and that the halakha applies both in the Tabernacle and in the Temple.

בשלמא מקדש איקרי משכן דכתיב ונתתי משכני בתוככם אלא משכן דאיקרי מקדש מנלן אילימא מדכתיב ונסעו הקהתים נשאי המקדש ההוא בארון כתיב אלא מהכא ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם וכתיב ככל אשר אני מראה אותך את תבנית המשכן

The Gemara questions its previous assumption: Granted, the Temple is also called Tabernacle, as it is written: “And I will set My Tabernacle among you” (Leviticus 26:11), where the reference is to the Temple, as the verse is referring to that which will transpire after the Jewish people have settled in their land. But from where do we derive that the Tabernacle is also called Temple? If we say that it is derived from that which is written: “And the Kehatites, the bearers of the Temple, set forward” (Numbers 10:21), that instance of the term Temple is not written with regard to the Tabernacle; rather, it is written with regard to the Ark and the other sacred vessels. Rather, it is derived from here: “And let them make Me a Temple, that I may dwell among them” (Exodus 25:8), where the reference is to the Tabernacle, as immediately afterward it is written: “According to all that I show you, the pattern of the Tabernacle” (Exodus 25:9).

והשתחוה או ששהה כדי השתחואה אמר רבא לא שנו אלא שהשתחוה כלפי פנים אבל השתחוה כלפי חוץ שהה אין לא שהה לא

§ The mishna teaches: If he bowed down, or he tarried in the Temple courtyard long enough to bow down, or he went out by way of a longer route when he could have taken a shorter route, he is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering. Rava says: They taught this only when he bowed down in the Temple courtyard facing inward, toward the Holy of Holies, as that alone is proper bowing. But if he bowed down facing outward, that is not considered bowing. When he bows facing outward, if he tarried in the Temple courtyard long enough to bow down, yes, he is liable, but if he did not tarry long enough to bow down, he is not liable.

איכא דמתני לה אסיפא או ששהה בכדי השתחואה מכלל דהשתחואה גופה בעיא שהייה אמר רבא לא שנו אלא שהשתחוה כלפי חוץ אבל כלפי פנים אף על גב דלא שהה והכי קאמר השתחוה כלפי פנים או ששהה כדי השתחואה בהך השתחואה דכלפי חוץ חייב

There are those who teach the statement of Rava with regard to the latter clause: Or if he tarried in the Temple courtyard long enough to bow down, he is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering. It may be said by inference that bowing down itself entails tarrying, and the mere act of bowing does not render one liable. With regard to this Rava says: They taught this only when he bowed down facing outward. In such a case, he is liable only if he tarried long enough to bow down. But if he bowed down facing inward toward the Holy of Holies, he is liable even if he did not tarry for that length of time. And this is what the mishna is saying: If he bowed down facing inward, or if he tarried long enough to bow down while he was bowing down facing outward, he is liable.

היכי דמי השתחואה דאית בה שהייה והיכי דמי השתחואה דלית בה שהייה דלית בה שהייה זו כריעה בעלמא היא דאית בה שהייה פישוט ידים ורגלים

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of bowing in which there is tarrying, and what are the circumstances of bowing in which there is no tarrying? The Gemara answers: With regard to bowing in which there is no tarrying, that is merely kneeling. As for bowing in which there is tarrying, that is prostrating oneself while spreading one’s arms and legs in total submission.

וכמה שיעור שהייה פליגי בה רבי יצחק בר נחמני וחד דעימיה ומנו רבי שמעון בן פזי ואמרי לה רבי שמעון בן פזי וחד דעימיה ומנו רבי יצחק בר נחמני ואמרי לה רבי שמעון בר נחמני חד אמר כמימריה דהאי פסוקא וחד אמר כמויכרעו לסיפא וכל בני ישראל ראים ברדת האש וכבוד ה׳ על הבית ויכרעו אפים ארצה על הרצפה וישתחוו והודות לה׳ כי טוב כי לעולם חסדו

The Gemara asks: And what is the measure of that tarrying? Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Naḥmani and one other Sage who was with him disagree about this. And who is that other scholar? Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi. And some say that it was Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi and one other Sage who was with him. And who is that other scholar? Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Naḥmani. And some say it was Rabbi Shimon bar Naḥmani. One Sage says: It is as long as the time it takes to recite this following verse in its entirety, and one Sage says: It is as long as the time it takes to recite from the term “and they bowed” in the middle of that verse until the end. What is the verse? “And when all the children of Israel saw how the fire came down, and the glory of the Lord upon the House, and they bowed with their faces to the ground upon the pavement, and prostrated themselves, and praised the Lord, saying: For He is good, for His steadfast love endures forever” (II Chronicles 7:3).

תנו רבנן קידה על אפים וכן הוא אומר ותקד בת שבע אפים ארץ כריעה על ברכים וכן הוא אומר מכרע על ברכיו השתחואה זו פישוט ידים ורגלים וכן אומר הבוא נבוא אני ואמך ואחיך להשתחות לך ארצה

The Gemara discusses the different forms of bowing in greater detail. The Sages taught: The term kidda indicates falling upon one’s face, and so the verse states: “Then Bathsheba bowed [vatikkod] with her face to the ground” (I Kings 1:31). Keria means descending upon one’s knees, and so the verse states with regard to Solomon: “He rose from before the altar of the Lord, from kneeling [mikero’a] upon his knees” (I Kings 8:54). Hishtaḥava’a, this is prostrating oneself while spreading one’s arms and legs in total submission, and so the verse states that Jacob asked, in response to Joseph’s relating of his dream: “Shall I and your mother and your brothers indeed come to bow down [lehishtaḥavot] to you to the ground” (Genesis 37:10), i.e., spread out completely on the ground.

בעי רבא צריך שהייה למלקות או אין צריך שהייה למלקות לקרבן גמירי שהייה למלקות לא גמירי שהייה

§ Rava raises a dilemma: Is tarrying long enough to bow down necessary to incur lashes? If one was warned not to remain in the Temple courtyard in a state of impurity, is he liable to receive lashes only if he remains there long enough to bow down, completely spread out on the ground? Or is tarrying not necessary to incur lashes, and he is immediately liable to receive lashes? The Gemara clarifies the two possibilities: Is it learned as a tradition that tarrying is necessary in order to incur liability to bring an offering, but not learned as a tradition that tarrying is necessary to become liable to receive lashes?