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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 14, 2017 | ื›ืดื• ื‘ื›ืกืœื• ืชืฉืขืดื—

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Shevuot 16

Do all the elements mentioned in the mishnaย that are needing for sanctifying additional space need to be there or is it sufficient for just one of them?ย  This has ramifications for the second temple period where not all these elements were accessible?ย  The debate regarding this is based on the whether or not the kedusha in the first temple remain forever or did it need resanctification in the time of Ezra.ย  From where do we derive that one who becomes impure in the mikdashย will need to bring a sliding scale sacrifice if one doesn’t leave the temple immediately?ย  What are the measurements for how long one needs to be in there in order to be obligated in the sacrifice?ย  WOuld it be the same for one who did in intentionally and will be punished by lashes?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

ืขืœ ืคื™ ื ื‘ื™ื ื ืื›ืœืช ื•ืขืœ ืคื™ ื ื‘ื™ื ื ืฉืจืคืช

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 Nehemiahโ€™s reconsecration of Jerusalem, instructed the people concerning how the ceremony should be conducted, without providing reasons for the procedures.

ื›ืœ ืฉืœื ื ืขืฉื™ืช ื‘ื›ืœ ืืœื• ื›ื•ืณ ืื™ืชืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ื‘ื›ืœ ืืœื• ืชื ืŸ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ื‘ืื—ืช ืžื›ืœ ืืœื• ืชื ืŸ

ยง 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 amoraโ€™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 Naแธฅman 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.

ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ื‘ื›ืœ ืืœื• ืชื ืŸ ืงืกื‘ืจ ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ืงื™ื“ืฉื” ืœืฉืขืชื” ื•ืงื™ื“ืฉื” ืœืขืชื™ื“ ืœื‘ื ื•ืขื–ืจื ื–ื›ืจ ื‘ืขืœืžื ื”ื•ื ื“ืขื‘ื“

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.

ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ื‘ืื—ืช ืžื›ืœ ืืœื• ืชื ืŸ ืงืกื‘ืจ ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ืงื™ื“ืฉื” ืœืฉืขืชื” ื•ืœื ืงื™ื“ืฉื” ืœืขืชื™ื“ ืœื‘ื ื•ืขื–ืจื ืงื“ื•ืฉื™ ืงื“ื™ืฉ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืœื ื”ื•ื• ืื•ืจื™ื ื•ืชื•ืžื™ื

Rav Naแธฅman 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.

ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืœืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื›ืœ ืฉืœื ื ืขืฉื™ืช ื‘ื›ืœ ืืœื• ืชื ื™ ื‘ืื—ืช ืžื›ืœ ืืœื•

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

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉื ื™ ื‘ื™ืฆืขื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื• ื‘ื”ืจ ื”ืžืฉื—ื” ืชื—ืชื•ื ื” ื•ืขืœื™ื•ื ื” ืชื—ืชื•ื ื” ื ืชืงื“ืฉื” ื‘ื›ืœ ืืœื• ืขืœื™ื•ื ื” ืœื ื ืชืงื“ืฉื” ื‘ื›ืœ ืืœื• ืืœื ื‘ืขื•ืœื™ ื’ื•ืœื” ืฉืœื ื‘ืžืœืš ื•ืฉืœื ื‘ืื•ืจื™ื ื•ืชื•ืžื™ื

The Gemara cites a proof against the opinion of Rav Naแธฅman: Come and hear a baraita: Abba Shaul says: There were two ponds [bitzin] on the Mount of Olives [Har HaMishแธฅa], 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.

ืชื—ืชื•ื ื” ืฉื”ื™ืชื” ืงื“ื•ืฉืชื” ื’ืžื•ืจื” ืขืžื™ ื”ืืจืฅ ื ื›ื ืกื™ืŸ ืœืฉื ื•ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ืฉื ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืœื ืžืขืฉืจ ืฉื ื™ ื•ื—ื‘ืจื™ื ืื•ื›ืœื™ื ืฉื ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ื•ืžืขืฉืจ ืฉื ื™

The baraita continues: With regard to the lower pond, whose consecration was complete, amei haโ€™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 แธฅaverim, who were meticulous in their observance of those mitzvot, would partake of both offerings of lesser sanctity and second tithe there.

ืขืœื™ื•ื ื” ืฉืœื ื”ื™ืชื” ืงื“ื•ืฉืชื” ื’ืžื•ืจื” ืขืžื™ ื”ืืจืฅ ื”ื™ื• ื ื›ื ืกื™ืŸ ืฉื ื•ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ืฉื ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืœื ืžืขืฉืจ ืฉื ื™ ื•ื—ื‘ืจื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ืฉื ืœื ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ื•ืœื ืžืขืฉืจ ืฉื ื™ ื•ืžืคื ื™ ืžื” ืœื ืงื™ื“ืฉื•ื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืกื™ืคื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื”ืขื™ืจ ื•ืขืœ ื”ืขื–ืจื•ืช ืืœื ื‘ืžืœืš ื•ื ื‘ื™ื ื•ืื•ืจื™ื ื•ืชื•ืžื™ื ื•ื‘ืกื ื”ื“ืจื™ืŸ ืฉืœ ืฉื‘ืขื™ื ื•ืื—ื“ ื•ื‘ืฉืชื™ ืชื•ื“ื•ืช ื•ื‘ืฉื™ืจ

The baraita continues: As for the upper pond, whose consecration was incomplete, amei haโ€™aretz would enter into there and partake of offerings of lesser sanctity there, but they would not partake of second tithe there. And แธฅaverim 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.

ื•ืœืžื” ืงื™ื“ืฉื•ื” ืœืžื” ืงื™ื“ืฉื•ื” ื”ื ืืžืจืช ืœื ืงื™ื“ืฉื•ื” ืืœื ืœืžื” ื”ื›ื ื™ืกื•ื” ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืชื•ืจืคื” ืฉืœ ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ื”ื™ืชื” ื•ื ื•ื—ื” ื”ื™ื ืœื™ื›ื‘ืฉ ืžืฉื

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? Didnโ€™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 Naแธฅman, who holds that there is no need for all of the procedures listed in the mishna in order for the consecration to be complete.

ืชื ืื™ ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืฉืžืขืชื™ ื›ืฉื”ื™ื• ื‘ื•ื ื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ื™ื›ืœ ืขืฉื• ืงืœืขื™ื ืœื”ื™ื›ืœ ื•ืงืœืขื™ื ืœืขื–ืจื•ืช ืืœื ืฉื‘ื”ื™ื›ืœ ื‘ื•ื ื™ืŸ ืžื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ื•ื‘ืขื–ืจื•ืช ื‘ื•ื ื™ืŸ ืžื‘ืคื ื™ื

The Gemara rejects this proof: This is a dispute between tannaโ€™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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืฉืžืขืชื™ ืฉืžืงืจื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืช ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืงืœืขื™ื ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ื•ืžืขืฉืจ ืฉื ื™ ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืžื” ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ืงื™ื“ืฉื” ืœืฉืขืชื” ื•ืงื™ื“ืฉื” ืœืขืชื™ื“ ืœื‘ื ืœืื• ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื ืงื™ื“ืฉื” ืœืขืชื™ื“ ืœื‘ื

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 tannaโ€™im.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืžืžืื™ ื“ืœืžื ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ืงื™ื“ืฉื” ืœืฉืขืชื” ื•ืงื™ื“ืฉื” ืœืขืชื™ื“ ืœื‘ื ื•ืžืจ ืžืื™ ื“ืฉืžื™ืข ืœื™ื” ืงืืžืจ ื•ืžืจ ืžืื™ ื“ืฉืžื™ืข ืœื™ื” ืงืืžืจ ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ืงืœืขื™ื ืœืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืœืฆื ื™ืขื•ืชื ื‘ืขืœืžื

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.

ืืœื ื”ื ื™ ืชื ืื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืœืžื” ืžื ื• ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืืช ืืœื• ืฉื›ืฉืขืœื• ื‘ื ื™ ื”ื’ื•ืœื” ืžืฆืื• ืืœื• ื•ืงื™ื“ืฉื•ื ืื‘ืœ ืจืืฉื•ื ื•ืช ื‘ื˜ืœื• ืžืฉื‘ื˜ืœื” ื”ืืจืฅ ืืœืžื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ืงื™ื“ืฉื” ืœืฉืขืชื” ื•ืœื ืงื™ื“ืฉื” ืœืขืชื™ื“ ืœื‘ื

Rather, this matter is subject to a dispute between these tannaโ€™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.

ื•ืจืžื™ื ื”ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื•ื›ื™ ืืœื• ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ื”ื™ื• ื•ื”ืœื ื›ื‘ืจ ื ืืžืจ ืฉืฉื™ื ืขื™ืจ ื›ืœ ื—ื‘ืœ ืืจื’ื‘ ืžืžืœื›ืช ืขื•ื’ ื‘ื‘ืฉืŸ ื›ืœ ืืœื” ืขืจื™ื ื‘ืฆืจื•ืช ื—ื•ืžื” ื’ื‘ื”ื” ืืœื ืœืžื” ืžื ื• ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืืช ืืœื• ืฉื›ืฉืขืœื• ื‘ื ื™ ื”ื’ื•ืœื” ืžืฆืื• ืืœื• ื•ืงื™ื“ืฉื•ื

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 isnโ€™t it already stated: โ€œSixty cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og, king of Bashan, all these were cities fortified with high walls, gates and barsโ€ (Deuteronomy 3:4โ€“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.

ืงื™ื“ืฉื•ื ื”ืฉืชื ื”ื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืœืงืžืŸ ื“ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ืœืงื“ื•ืฉื™ ืืœื ืžืฆืื• ืืœื• ื•ืžื ืื•ื

The Gemara asks: They consecrated them? If their sanctity remained, it should not have been necessary to consecrate them. Now, donโ€™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.

ื•ืœื ืืœื• ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ืืœื ื›ืœ ืฉืชืขืœื” ื‘ื™ื“ืš ืžืกื•ืจืช ืžืื‘ื•ืชื™ืš ืฉืžื•ืงืคืช ื—ื•ืžื” ืžื™ืžื•ืช ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ื ื•ืŸ ื›ืœ ืžืฆื•ืช ืืœื• ื ื•ื”ื’ื•ืช ื‘ื” ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ืงื™ื“ืฉื” ืœืฉืขืชื” ื•ืงื™ื“ืฉื” ืœืขืชื™ื“ ืœื‘ื ืงืฉื™ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื‘ืจ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื‘ืจ ื™ื•ืกื™

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.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืชืจื™ ืชื ืื™ ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื‘ืจ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ื—ื“ื ืžื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืืžืจื” ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืืฉืจ ืœื•ื ื—ืžื” ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืขื›ืฉื™ื• ื•ื”ื™ื” ืœื• ืงื•ื“ื ืœื›ืŸ

The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that there are two tannaโ€™im who disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael bar Yosei. Each transmitted Rabbi Yishmaelโ€™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: โ€œWhich has [lo] a wallโ€ (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.

ื ื˜ืžื ื‘ืขื–ืจื” ื•ื ืขืœืžื” ืžืžื ื• ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื•ื›ื•ืณ ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื‘ืขื–ืจื” ืžื ืœืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ืืช ืžืฉื›ืŸ ื”ืณ ื˜ืžื ื•ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ื™ ืืช ืžืงื“ืฉ ื”ืณ ื˜ืžื ืื ืื™ื ื• ืขื ื™ืŸ ืœื˜ื•ืžืื” ืฉื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ืชื ื”ื• ืขื ื™ืŸ ืœื˜ื•ืžืื” ืฉื‘ืคื ื™ื

ยง 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: โ€œHe has defiled the Tabernacle of the Lordโ€ (Numbers 19:13), and one verse states: โ€œFor he has defiled the Temple of the Lordโ€ (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.

ื•ืงืจืื™ ืžื™ืชืจื™ ื”ื ืžื™ืฆืจืš ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืื ื ืืžืจ ืžืฉื›ืŸ ืœืžื” ื ืืžืจ ืžืงื“ืฉ ื•ืื ื ืืžืจ ืžืงื“ืฉ ืœืžื” ื ืืžืจ ืžืฉื›ืŸ ืื™ืœื• ื ืืžืจ ืžืฉื›ืŸ ื•ืœื ื ืืžืจ ืžืงื“ืฉ ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืขืœ ืžืฉื›ืŸ ื™ื”ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืฉื”ืจื™ ืžืฉื•ื— ื‘ืฉืžืŸ ื”ืžืฉื—ื” ื•ืขืœ ืžืงื“ืฉ ืœื ื™ื”ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ืื ื ืืžืจ ืžืงื“ืฉ ื•ืœื ื ืืžืจ ืžืฉื›ืŸ ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืขืœ ืžืงื“ืฉ ื™ื”ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืฉื”ืจื™ ืงื“ื•ืฉืชื• ืงื“ื•ืฉืช ืขื•ืœื ื•ืขืœ ืžืฉื›ืŸ ืœื ื™ื”ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœื›ืš ื ืืžืจ ืžืฉื›ืŸ ืœื›ืš ื ืืžืจ ืžืงื“ืฉ

The Gemara asks: But is it really superfluous to have both of these verses, one having been sufficient? Arenโ€™t they each necessary to teach a novel ruling? As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar says: If it is stated: โ€œTabernacle,โ€ why does it state: โ€œTempleโ€? And if it is stated: โ€œTemple,โ€ why does it state: โ€œTabernacleโ€? He explains: Had the verse stated only: โ€œTabernacle,โ€ and not stated: โ€œTemple,โ€ 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: โ€œTemple,โ€ and not stated: โ€œTabernacle,โ€ 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: โ€œTabernacle,โ€ and for this reason, it is stated: โ€œTemple.โ€

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื”ื›ื™ ืงื ืงืฉื™ื ืœื™ื” ืžื›ื“ื™ ืžืฉื›ืŸ ืื™ืงืจื™ ืžืงื“ืฉ ื•ืžืงื“ืฉ ืื™ืงืจื™ ืžืฉื›ืŸ ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืื• ืื™ื“ื™ ื•ืื™ื“ื™ ืžืงื“ืฉ ืื• ืื™ื“ื™ ื•ืื™ื“ื™ ืžืฉื›ืŸ ืžืฉื›ืŸ ื•ืžืงื“ืฉ ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืชืจืชื™

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 โ€œTabernacleโ€ and โ€œTempleโ€? 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.

ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืžืงื“ืฉ ืื™ืงืจื™ ืžืฉื›ืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื ืชืชื™ ืžืฉื›ื ื™ ื‘ืชื•ื›ื›ื ืืœื ืžืฉื›ืŸ ื“ืื™ืงืจื™ ืžืงื“ืฉ ืžื ืœืŸ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืžื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื ืกืขื• ื”ืงื”ืชื™ื ื ืฉืื™ ื”ืžืงื“ืฉ ื”ื”ื•ื ื‘ืืจื•ืŸ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืืœื ืžื”ื›ื ื•ืขืฉื• ืœื™ ืžืงื“ืฉ ื•ืฉื›ื ืชื™ ื‘ืชื•ื›ื ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ื›ืœ ืืฉืจ ืื ื™ ืžืจืื” ืื•ืชืš ืืช ืชื‘ื ื™ืช ื”ืžืฉื›ืŸ

The Gemara questions its previous assumption: Granted, the Temple is also called Tabernacle, as it is written: โ€œAnd I will set My Tabernacle among youโ€ (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: โ€œAnd the Kehatites, the bearers of the Temple, set forwardโ€ (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: โ€œAnd let them make Me a Temple, that I may dwell among themโ€ (Exodus 25:8), where the reference is to the Tabernacle, as immediately afterward it is written: โ€œAccording to all that I show you, the pattern of the Tabernacleโ€ (Exodus 25:9).

ื•ื”ืฉืชื—ื•ื” ืื• ืฉืฉื”ื” ื›ื“ื™ ื”ืฉืชื—ื•ืื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืฉื”ืฉืชื—ื•ื” ื›ืœืคื™ ืคื ื™ื ืื‘ืœ ื”ืฉืชื—ื•ื” ื›ืœืคื™ ื—ื•ืฅ ืฉื”ื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื ืฉื”ื” ืœื

ยง 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.

ืื™ื›ื ื“ืžืชื ื™ ืœื” ืืกื™ืคื ืื• ืฉืฉื”ื” ื‘ื›ื“ื™ ื”ืฉืชื—ื•ืื” ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ื”ืฉืชื—ื•ืื” ื’ื•ืคื” ื‘ืขื™ื ืฉื”ื™ื™ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืฉื”ืฉืชื—ื•ื” ื›ืœืคื™ ื—ื•ืฅ ืื‘ืœ ื›ืœืคื™ ืคื ื™ื ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืœื ืฉื”ื” ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื”ืฉืชื—ื•ื” ื›ืœืคื™ ืคื ื™ื ืื• ืฉืฉื”ื” ื›ื“ื™ ื”ืฉืชื—ื•ืื” ื‘ื”ืš ื”ืฉืชื—ื•ืื” ื“ื›ืœืคื™ ื—ื•ืฅ ื—ื™ื™ื‘

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.

ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ื”ืฉืชื—ื•ืื” ื“ืื™ืช ื‘ื” ืฉื”ื™ื™ื” ื•ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ื”ืฉืชื—ื•ืื” ื“ืœื™ืช ื‘ื” ืฉื”ื™ื™ื” ื“ืœื™ืช ื‘ื” ืฉื”ื™ื™ื” ื–ื• ื›ืจื™ืขื” ื‘ืขืœืžื ื”ื™ื ื“ืื™ืช ื‘ื” ืฉื”ื™ื™ื” ืคื™ืฉื•ื˜ ื™ื“ื™ื ื•ืจื’ืœื™ื

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 oneโ€™s arms and legs in total submission.

ื•ื›ืžื” ืฉื™ืขื•ืจ ืฉื”ื™ื™ื” ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื‘ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืจ ื ื—ืžื ื™ ื•ื—ื“ ื“ืขื™ืžื™ื” ื•ืžื ื• ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืคื–ื™ ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืคื–ื™ ื•ื—ื“ ื“ืขื™ืžื™ื” ื•ืžื ื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืจ ื ื—ืžื ื™ ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืจ ื ื—ืžื ื™ ื—ื“ ืืžืจ ื›ืžื™ืžืจื™ื” ื“ื”ืื™ ืคืกื•ืงื ื•ื—ื“ ืืžืจ ื›ืžื•ื™ื›ืจืขื• ืœืกื™ืคื ื•ื›ืœ ื‘ื ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืจืื™ื ื‘ืจื“ืช ื”ืืฉ ื•ื›ื‘ื•ื“ ื”ืณ ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื•ื™ื›ืจืขื• ืืคื™ื ืืจืฆื” ืขืœ ื”ืจืฆืคื” ื•ื™ืฉืชื—ื•ื• ื•ื”ื•ื“ื•ืช ืœื”ืณ ื›ื™ ื˜ื•ื‘ ื›ื™ ืœืขื•ืœื ื—ืกื“ื•

The Gemara asks: And what is the measure of that tarrying? Rabbi Yitzแธฅak bar Naแธฅmani 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 Yitzแธฅak bar Naแธฅmani. And some say it was Rabbi Shimon bar Naแธฅmani. 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 โ€œand they bowedโ€ in the middle of that verse until the end. What is the verse? โ€œAnd 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 foreverโ€ (IIย Chronicles 7:3).

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืงื™ื“ื” ืขืœ ืืคื™ื ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ื•ืชืงื“ ื‘ืช ืฉื‘ืข ืืคื™ื ืืจืฅ ื›ืจื™ืขื” ืขืœ ื‘ืจื›ื™ื ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืžื›ืจืข ืขืœ ื‘ืจื›ื™ื• ื”ืฉืชื—ื•ืื” ื–ื• ืคื™ืฉื•ื˜ ื™ื“ื™ื ื•ืจื’ืœื™ื ื•ื›ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ื”ื‘ื•ื ื ื‘ื•ื ืื ื™ ื•ืืžืš ื•ืื—ื™ืš ืœื”ืฉืชื—ื•ืช ืœืš ืืจืฆื”

The Gemara discusses the different forms of bowing in greater detail. The Sages taught: The term kidda indicates falling upon oneโ€™s face, and so the verse states: โ€œThen Bathsheba bowed [vatikkod] with her face to the groundโ€ (Iย Kings 1:31). Keria means descending upon oneโ€™s knees, and so the verse states with regard to Solomon: โ€œHe rose from before the altar of the Lord, from kneeling [mikeroโ€™a] upon his kneesโ€ (Iย Kings 8:54). Hishtaแธฅavaโ€™a, this is prostrating oneself while spreadingย oneโ€™sย arms and legs in total submission, and so the verse states that Jacob asked, in response to Josephโ€™s relating of his dream: โ€œShall I and your mother and your brothers indeed come to bow down [lehishtaแธฅavot] to you to the groundโ€ (Genesis 37:10), i.e., spread out completely on the ground.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื ืฆืจื™ืš ืฉื”ื™ื™ื” ืœืžืœืงื•ืช ืื• ืื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ืฉื”ื™ื™ื” ืœืžืœืงื•ืช ืœืงืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžื™ืจื™ ืฉื”ื™ื™ื” ืœืžืœืงื•ืช ืœื ื’ืžื™ืจื™ ืฉื”ื™ื™ื”

ยง 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?

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 16

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shevuot 16

ืขืœ ืคื™ ื ื‘ื™ื ื ืื›ืœืช ื•ืขืœ ืคื™ ื ื‘ื™ื ื ืฉืจืคืช

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 Nehemiahโ€™s reconsecration of Jerusalem, instructed the people concerning how the ceremony should be conducted, without providing reasons for the procedures.

ื›ืœ ืฉืœื ื ืขืฉื™ืช ื‘ื›ืœ ืืœื• ื›ื•ืณ ืื™ืชืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ื‘ื›ืœ ืืœื• ืชื ืŸ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ื‘ืื—ืช ืžื›ืœ ืืœื• ืชื ืŸ

ยง 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 amoraโ€™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 Naแธฅman 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.

ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ื‘ื›ืœ ืืœื• ืชื ืŸ ืงืกื‘ืจ ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ืงื™ื“ืฉื” ืœืฉืขืชื” ื•ืงื™ื“ืฉื” ืœืขืชื™ื“ ืœื‘ื ื•ืขื–ืจื ื–ื›ืจ ื‘ืขืœืžื ื”ื•ื ื“ืขื‘ื“

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.

ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ื‘ืื—ืช ืžื›ืœ ืืœื• ืชื ืŸ ืงืกื‘ืจ ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ืงื™ื“ืฉื” ืœืฉืขืชื” ื•ืœื ืงื™ื“ืฉื” ืœืขืชื™ื“ ืœื‘ื ื•ืขื–ืจื ืงื“ื•ืฉื™ ืงื“ื™ืฉ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืœื ื”ื•ื• ืื•ืจื™ื ื•ืชื•ืžื™ื

Rav Naแธฅman 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.

ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืœืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื›ืœ ืฉืœื ื ืขืฉื™ืช ื‘ื›ืœ ืืœื• ืชื ื™ ื‘ืื—ืช ืžื›ืœ ืืœื•

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

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉื ื™ ื‘ื™ืฆืขื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื• ื‘ื”ืจ ื”ืžืฉื—ื” ืชื—ืชื•ื ื” ื•ืขืœื™ื•ื ื” ืชื—ืชื•ื ื” ื ืชืงื“ืฉื” ื‘ื›ืœ ืืœื• ืขืœื™ื•ื ื” ืœื ื ืชืงื“ืฉื” ื‘ื›ืœ ืืœื• ืืœื ื‘ืขื•ืœื™ ื’ื•ืœื” ืฉืœื ื‘ืžืœืš ื•ืฉืœื ื‘ืื•ืจื™ื ื•ืชื•ืžื™ื

The Gemara cites a proof against the opinion of Rav Naแธฅman: Come and hear a baraita: Abba Shaul says: There were two ponds [bitzin] on the Mount of Olives [Har HaMishแธฅa], 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.

ืชื—ืชื•ื ื” ืฉื”ื™ืชื” ืงื“ื•ืฉืชื” ื’ืžื•ืจื” ืขืžื™ ื”ืืจืฅ ื ื›ื ืกื™ืŸ ืœืฉื ื•ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ืฉื ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืœื ืžืขืฉืจ ืฉื ื™ ื•ื—ื‘ืจื™ื ืื•ื›ืœื™ื ืฉื ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ื•ืžืขืฉืจ ืฉื ื™

The baraita continues: With regard to the lower pond, whose consecration was complete, amei haโ€™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 แธฅaverim, who were meticulous in their observance of those mitzvot, would partake of both offerings of lesser sanctity and second tithe there.

ืขืœื™ื•ื ื” ืฉืœื ื”ื™ืชื” ืงื“ื•ืฉืชื” ื’ืžื•ืจื” ืขืžื™ ื”ืืจืฅ ื”ื™ื• ื ื›ื ืกื™ืŸ ืฉื ื•ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ืฉื ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืœื ืžืขืฉืจ ืฉื ื™ ื•ื—ื‘ืจื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ืฉื ืœื ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ื•ืœื ืžืขืฉืจ ืฉื ื™ ื•ืžืคื ื™ ืžื” ืœื ืงื™ื“ืฉื•ื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืกื™ืคื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื”ืขื™ืจ ื•ืขืœ ื”ืขื–ืจื•ืช ืืœื ื‘ืžืœืš ื•ื ื‘ื™ื ื•ืื•ืจื™ื ื•ืชื•ืžื™ื ื•ื‘ืกื ื”ื“ืจื™ืŸ ืฉืœ ืฉื‘ืขื™ื ื•ืื—ื“ ื•ื‘ืฉืชื™ ืชื•ื“ื•ืช ื•ื‘ืฉื™ืจ

The baraita continues: As for the upper pond, whose consecration was incomplete, amei haโ€™aretz would enter into there and partake of offerings of lesser sanctity there, but they would not partake of second tithe there. And แธฅaverim 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.

ื•ืœืžื” ืงื™ื“ืฉื•ื” ืœืžื” ืงื™ื“ืฉื•ื” ื”ื ืืžืจืช ืœื ืงื™ื“ืฉื•ื” ืืœื ืœืžื” ื”ื›ื ื™ืกื•ื” ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืชื•ืจืคื” ืฉืœ ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ื”ื™ืชื” ื•ื ื•ื—ื” ื”ื™ื ืœื™ื›ื‘ืฉ ืžืฉื

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? Didnโ€™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 Naแธฅman, who holds that there is no need for all of the procedures listed in the mishna in order for the consecration to be complete.

ืชื ืื™ ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืฉืžืขืชื™ ื›ืฉื”ื™ื• ื‘ื•ื ื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ื™ื›ืœ ืขืฉื• ืงืœืขื™ื ืœื”ื™ื›ืœ ื•ืงืœืขื™ื ืœืขื–ืจื•ืช ืืœื ืฉื‘ื”ื™ื›ืœ ื‘ื•ื ื™ืŸ ืžื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ื•ื‘ืขื–ืจื•ืช ื‘ื•ื ื™ืŸ ืžื‘ืคื ื™ื

The Gemara rejects this proof: This is a dispute between tannaโ€™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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืฉืžืขืชื™ ืฉืžืงืจื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืช ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืงืœืขื™ื ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ื•ืžืขืฉืจ ืฉื ื™ ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืžื” ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ืงื™ื“ืฉื” ืœืฉืขืชื” ื•ืงื™ื“ืฉื” ืœืขืชื™ื“ ืœื‘ื ืœืื• ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื ืงื™ื“ืฉื” ืœืขืชื™ื“ ืœื‘ื

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 tannaโ€™im.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืžืžืื™ ื“ืœืžื ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ืงื™ื“ืฉื” ืœืฉืขืชื” ื•ืงื™ื“ืฉื” ืœืขืชื™ื“ ืœื‘ื ื•ืžืจ ืžืื™ ื“ืฉืžื™ืข ืœื™ื” ืงืืžืจ ื•ืžืจ ืžืื™ ื“ืฉืžื™ืข ืœื™ื” ืงืืžืจ ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ืงืœืขื™ื ืœืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืœืฆื ื™ืขื•ืชื ื‘ืขืœืžื

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.

ืืœื ื”ื ื™ ืชื ืื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืœืžื” ืžื ื• ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืืช ืืœื• ืฉื›ืฉืขืœื• ื‘ื ื™ ื”ื’ื•ืœื” ืžืฆืื• ืืœื• ื•ืงื™ื“ืฉื•ื ืื‘ืœ ืจืืฉื•ื ื•ืช ื‘ื˜ืœื• ืžืฉื‘ื˜ืœื” ื”ืืจืฅ ืืœืžื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ืงื™ื“ืฉื” ืœืฉืขืชื” ื•ืœื ืงื™ื“ืฉื” ืœืขืชื™ื“ ืœื‘ื

Rather, this matter is subject to a dispute between these tannaโ€™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.

ื•ืจืžื™ื ื”ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื•ื›ื™ ืืœื• ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ื”ื™ื• ื•ื”ืœื ื›ื‘ืจ ื ืืžืจ ืฉืฉื™ื ืขื™ืจ ื›ืœ ื—ื‘ืœ ืืจื’ื‘ ืžืžืœื›ืช ืขื•ื’ ื‘ื‘ืฉืŸ ื›ืœ ืืœื” ืขืจื™ื ื‘ืฆืจื•ืช ื—ื•ืžื” ื’ื‘ื”ื” ืืœื ืœืžื” ืžื ื• ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืืช ืืœื• ืฉื›ืฉืขืœื• ื‘ื ื™ ื”ื’ื•ืœื” ืžืฆืื• ืืœื• ื•ืงื™ื“ืฉื•ื

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 isnโ€™t it already stated: โ€œSixty cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og, king of Bashan, all these were cities fortified with high walls, gates and barsโ€ (Deuteronomy 3:4โ€“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.

ืงื™ื“ืฉื•ื ื”ืฉืชื ื”ื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืœืงืžืŸ ื“ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ืœืงื“ื•ืฉื™ ืืœื ืžืฆืื• ืืœื• ื•ืžื ืื•ื

The Gemara asks: They consecrated them? If their sanctity remained, it should not have been necessary to consecrate them. Now, donโ€™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.

ื•ืœื ืืœื• ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ืืœื ื›ืœ ืฉืชืขืœื” ื‘ื™ื“ืš ืžืกื•ืจืช ืžืื‘ื•ืชื™ืš ืฉืžื•ืงืคืช ื—ื•ืžื” ืžื™ืžื•ืช ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ื ื•ืŸ ื›ืœ ืžืฆื•ืช ืืœื• ื ื•ื”ื’ื•ืช ื‘ื” ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ืงื™ื“ืฉื” ืœืฉืขืชื” ื•ืงื™ื“ืฉื” ืœืขืชื™ื“ ืœื‘ื ืงืฉื™ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื‘ืจ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื‘ืจ ื™ื•ืกื™

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.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืชืจื™ ืชื ืื™ ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื‘ืจ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ื—ื“ื ืžื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืืžืจื” ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืืฉืจ ืœื•ื ื—ืžื” ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืขื›ืฉื™ื• ื•ื”ื™ื” ืœื• ืงื•ื“ื ืœื›ืŸ

The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that there are two tannaโ€™im who disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael bar Yosei. Each transmitted Rabbi Yishmaelโ€™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: โ€œWhich has [lo] a wallโ€ (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.

ื ื˜ืžื ื‘ืขื–ืจื” ื•ื ืขืœืžื” ืžืžื ื• ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื•ื›ื•ืณ ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื‘ืขื–ืจื” ืžื ืœืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ืืช ืžืฉื›ืŸ ื”ืณ ื˜ืžื ื•ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ื™ ืืช ืžืงื“ืฉ ื”ืณ ื˜ืžื ืื ืื™ื ื• ืขื ื™ืŸ ืœื˜ื•ืžืื” ืฉื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ืชื ื”ื• ืขื ื™ืŸ ืœื˜ื•ืžืื” ืฉื‘ืคื ื™ื

ยง 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: โ€œHe has defiled the Tabernacle of the Lordโ€ (Numbers 19:13), and one verse states: โ€œFor he has defiled the Temple of the Lordโ€ (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.

ื•ืงืจืื™ ืžื™ืชืจื™ ื”ื ืžื™ืฆืจืš ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืื ื ืืžืจ ืžืฉื›ืŸ ืœืžื” ื ืืžืจ ืžืงื“ืฉ ื•ืื ื ืืžืจ ืžืงื“ืฉ ืœืžื” ื ืืžืจ ืžืฉื›ืŸ ืื™ืœื• ื ืืžืจ ืžืฉื›ืŸ ื•ืœื ื ืืžืจ ืžืงื“ืฉ ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืขืœ ืžืฉื›ืŸ ื™ื”ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืฉื”ืจื™ ืžืฉื•ื— ื‘ืฉืžืŸ ื”ืžืฉื—ื” ื•ืขืœ ืžืงื“ืฉ ืœื ื™ื”ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ืื ื ืืžืจ ืžืงื“ืฉ ื•ืœื ื ืืžืจ ืžืฉื›ืŸ ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืขืœ ืžืงื“ืฉ ื™ื”ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืฉื”ืจื™ ืงื“ื•ืฉืชื• ืงื“ื•ืฉืช ืขื•ืœื ื•ืขืœ ืžืฉื›ืŸ ืœื ื™ื”ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœื›ืš ื ืืžืจ ืžืฉื›ืŸ ืœื›ืš ื ืืžืจ ืžืงื“ืฉ

The Gemara asks: But is it really superfluous to have both of these verses, one having been sufficient? Arenโ€™t they each necessary to teach a novel ruling? As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar says: If it is stated: โ€œTabernacle,โ€ why does it state: โ€œTempleโ€? And if it is stated: โ€œTemple,โ€ why does it state: โ€œTabernacleโ€? He explains: Had the verse stated only: โ€œTabernacle,โ€ and not stated: โ€œTemple,โ€ 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: โ€œTemple,โ€ and not stated: โ€œTabernacle,โ€ 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: โ€œTabernacle,โ€ and for this reason, it is stated: โ€œTemple.โ€

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื”ื›ื™ ืงื ืงืฉื™ื ืœื™ื” ืžื›ื“ื™ ืžืฉื›ืŸ ืื™ืงืจื™ ืžืงื“ืฉ ื•ืžืงื“ืฉ ืื™ืงืจื™ ืžืฉื›ืŸ ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืื• ืื™ื“ื™ ื•ืื™ื“ื™ ืžืงื“ืฉ ืื• ืื™ื“ื™ ื•ืื™ื“ื™ ืžืฉื›ืŸ ืžืฉื›ืŸ ื•ืžืงื“ืฉ ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืชืจืชื™

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 โ€œTabernacleโ€ and โ€œTempleโ€? 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.

ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืžืงื“ืฉ ืื™ืงืจื™ ืžืฉื›ืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื ืชืชื™ ืžืฉื›ื ื™ ื‘ืชื•ื›ื›ื ืืœื ืžืฉื›ืŸ ื“ืื™ืงืจื™ ืžืงื“ืฉ ืžื ืœืŸ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืžื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื ืกืขื• ื”ืงื”ืชื™ื ื ืฉืื™ ื”ืžืงื“ืฉ ื”ื”ื•ื ื‘ืืจื•ืŸ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืืœื ืžื”ื›ื ื•ืขืฉื• ืœื™ ืžืงื“ืฉ ื•ืฉื›ื ืชื™ ื‘ืชื•ื›ื ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ื›ืœ ืืฉืจ ืื ื™ ืžืจืื” ืื•ืชืš ืืช ืชื‘ื ื™ืช ื”ืžืฉื›ืŸ

The Gemara questions its previous assumption: Granted, the Temple is also called Tabernacle, as it is written: โ€œAnd I will set My Tabernacle among youโ€ (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: โ€œAnd the Kehatites, the bearers of the Temple, set forwardโ€ (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: โ€œAnd let them make Me a Temple, that I may dwell among themโ€ (Exodus 25:8), where the reference is to the Tabernacle, as immediately afterward it is written: โ€œAccording to all that I show you, the pattern of the Tabernacleโ€ (Exodus 25:9).

ื•ื”ืฉืชื—ื•ื” ืื• ืฉืฉื”ื” ื›ื“ื™ ื”ืฉืชื—ื•ืื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืฉื”ืฉืชื—ื•ื” ื›ืœืคื™ ืคื ื™ื ืื‘ืœ ื”ืฉืชื—ื•ื” ื›ืœืคื™ ื—ื•ืฅ ืฉื”ื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื ืฉื”ื” ืœื

ยง 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.

ืื™ื›ื ื“ืžืชื ื™ ืœื” ืืกื™ืคื ืื• ืฉืฉื”ื” ื‘ื›ื“ื™ ื”ืฉืชื—ื•ืื” ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ื”ืฉืชื—ื•ืื” ื’ื•ืคื” ื‘ืขื™ื ืฉื”ื™ื™ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืฉื”ืฉืชื—ื•ื” ื›ืœืคื™ ื—ื•ืฅ ืื‘ืœ ื›ืœืคื™ ืคื ื™ื ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืœื ืฉื”ื” ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื”ืฉืชื—ื•ื” ื›ืœืคื™ ืคื ื™ื ืื• ืฉืฉื”ื” ื›ื“ื™ ื”ืฉืชื—ื•ืื” ื‘ื”ืš ื”ืฉืชื—ื•ืื” ื“ื›ืœืคื™ ื—ื•ืฅ ื—ื™ื™ื‘

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.

ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ื”ืฉืชื—ื•ืื” ื“ืื™ืช ื‘ื” ืฉื”ื™ื™ื” ื•ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ื”ืฉืชื—ื•ืื” ื“ืœื™ืช ื‘ื” ืฉื”ื™ื™ื” ื“ืœื™ืช ื‘ื” ืฉื”ื™ื™ื” ื–ื• ื›ืจื™ืขื” ื‘ืขืœืžื ื”ื™ื ื“ืื™ืช ื‘ื” ืฉื”ื™ื™ื” ืคื™ืฉื•ื˜ ื™ื“ื™ื ื•ืจื’ืœื™ื

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 oneโ€™s arms and legs in total submission.

ื•ื›ืžื” ืฉื™ืขื•ืจ ืฉื”ื™ื™ื” ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื‘ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืจ ื ื—ืžื ื™ ื•ื—ื“ ื“ืขื™ืžื™ื” ื•ืžื ื• ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืคื–ื™ ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืคื–ื™ ื•ื—ื“ ื“ืขื™ืžื™ื” ื•ืžื ื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืจ ื ื—ืžื ื™ ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืจ ื ื—ืžื ื™ ื—ื“ ืืžืจ ื›ืžื™ืžืจื™ื” ื“ื”ืื™ ืคืกื•ืงื ื•ื—ื“ ืืžืจ ื›ืžื•ื™ื›ืจืขื• ืœืกื™ืคื ื•ื›ืœ ื‘ื ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืจืื™ื ื‘ืจื“ืช ื”ืืฉ ื•ื›ื‘ื•ื“ ื”ืณ ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื•ื™ื›ืจืขื• ืืคื™ื ืืจืฆื” ืขืœ ื”ืจืฆืคื” ื•ื™ืฉืชื—ื•ื• ื•ื”ื•ื“ื•ืช ืœื”ืณ ื›ื™ ื˜ื•ื‘ ื›ื™ ืœืขื•ืœื ื—ืกื“ื•

The Gemara asks: And what is the measure of that tarrying? Rabbi Yitzแธฅak bar Naแธฅmani 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 Yitzแธฅak bar Naแธฅmani. And some say it was Rabbi Shimon bar Naแธฅmani. 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 โ€œand they bowedโ€ in the middle of that verse until the end. What is the verse? โ€œAnd 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 foreverโ€ (IIย Chronicles 7:3).

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืงื™ื“ื” ืขืœ ืืคื™ื ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ื•ืชืงื“ ื‘ืช ืฉื‘ืข ืืคื™ื ืืจืฅ ื›ืจื™ืขื” ืขืœ ื‘ืจื›ื™ื ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืžื›ืจืข ืขืœ ื‘ืจื›ื™ื• ื”ืฉืชื—ื•ืื” ื–ื• ืคื™ืฉื•ื˜ ื™ื“ื™ื ื•ืจื’ืœื™ื ื•ื›ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ื”ื‘ื•ื ื ื‘ื•ื ืื ื™ ื•ืืžืš ื•ืื—ื™ืš ืœื”ืฉืชื—ื•ืช ืœืš ืืจืฆื”

The Gemara discusses the different forms of bowing in greater detail. The Sages taught: The term kidda indicates falling upon oneโ€™s face, and so the verse states: โ€œThen Bathsheba bowed [vatikkod] with her face to the groundโ€ (Iย Kings 1:31). Keria means descending upon oneโ€™s knees, and so the verse states with regard to Solomon: โ€œHe rose from before the altar of the Lord, from kneeling [mikeroโ€™a] upon his kneesโ€ (Iย Kings 8:54). Hishtaแธฅavaโ€™a, this is prostrating oneself while spreadingย oneโ€™sย arms and legs in total submission, and so the verse states that Jacob asked, in response to Josephโ€™s relating of his dream: โ€œShall I and your mother and your brothers indeed come to bow down [lehishtaแธฅavot] to you to the groundโ€ (Genesis 37:10), i.e., spread out completely on the ground.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื ืฆืจื™ืš ืฉื”ื™ื™ื” ืœืžืœืงื•ืช ืื• ืื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ืฉื”ื™ื™ื” ืœืžืœืงื•ืช ืœืงืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžื™ืจื™ ืฉื”ื™ื™ื” ืœืžืœืงื•ืช ืœื ื’ืžื™ืจื™ ืฉื”ื™ื™ื”

ยง 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?

Scroll To Top