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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 14, 2017 | 讻状讜 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讞

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Shevuot 16

Do all the elements mentioned in the mishna聽that are needing for sanctifying additional space need to be there or is it sufficient for just one of them?聽 This has ramifications for the second temple period where not all these elements were accessible?聽 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.聽 From where do we derive that one who becomes impure in the mikdash聽will need to bring a sliding scale sacrifice if one doesn’t leave the temple immediately?聽 What are the measurements for how long one needs to be in there in order to be obligated in the sacrifice?聽 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"

注诇 驻讬 谞讘讬讗 谞讗讻诇转 讜注诇 驻讬 谞讘讬讗 谞砖专驻转

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鈥檚 reconsecration of Jerusalem, instructed the people concerning how the ceremony should be conducted, without providing reasons for the procedures.

讻诇 砖诇讗 谞注砖讬转 讘讻诇 讗诇讜 讻讜壮 讗讬转诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讘讻诇 讗诇讜 转谞谉 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讘讗讞转 诪讻诇 讗诇讜 转谞谉

搂 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鈥檌m 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 Na岣an 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.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讘讻诇 讗诇讜 转谞谉 拽住讘专 拽讚讜砖讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 拽讬讚砖讛 诇砖注转讛 讜拽讬讚砖讛 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗 讜注讝专讗 讝讻专 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚注讘讚

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.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讘讗讞转 诪讻诇 讗诇讜 转谞谉 拽住讘专 拽讚讜砖讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 拽讬讚砖讛 诇砖注转讛 讜诇讗 拽讬讚砖讛 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗 讜注讝专讗 拽讚讜砖讬 拽讚讬砖 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讛讜讜 讗讜专讬诐 讜转讜诪讬诐

Rav Na岣an 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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻诇 砖诇讗 谞注砖讬转 讘讻诇 讗诇讜 转谞讬 讘讗讞转 诪讻诇 讗诇讜

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

转讗 砖诪注 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬 讘讬爪注讬谉 讛讬讜 讘讛专 讛诪砖讞讛 转讞转讜谞讛 讜注诇讬讜谞讛 转讞转讜谞讛 谞转拽讚砖讛 讘讻诇 讗诇讜 注诇讬讜谞讛 诇讗 谞转拽讚砖讛 讘讻诇 讗诇讜 讗诇讗 讘注讜诇讬 讙讜诇讛 砖诇讗 讘诪诇讱 讜砖诇讗 讘讗讜专讬诐 讜转讜诪讬诐

The Gemara cites a proof against the opinion of Rav Na岣an: Come and hear a baraita: Abba Shaul says: There were two ponds [bitzin] on the Mount of Olives [Har HaMish岣], 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.

转讞转讜谞讛 砖讛讬转讛 拽讚讜砖转讛 讙诪讜专讛 注诪讬 讛讗专抓 谞讻谞住讬谉 诇砖诐 讜讗讜讻诇讬谉 砖诐 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讞讘专讬诐 讗讜讻诇讬诐 砖诐 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讜诪注砖专 砖谞讬

The baraita continues: With regard to the lower pond, whose consecration was complete, amei ha鈥檃retz, 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 岣verim, who were meticulous in their observance of those mitzvot, would partake of both offerings of lesser sanctity and second tithe there.

注诇讬讜谞讛 砖诇讗 讛讬转讛 拽讚讜砖转讛 讙诪讜专讛 注诪讬 讛讗专抓 讛讬讜 谞讻谞住讬谉 砖诐 讜讗讜讻诇讬谉 砖诐 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讞讘专讬诐 讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 砖诐 诇讗 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讜诇讗 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诇讗 拽讬讚砖讜讛 砖讗讬谉 诪讜住讬驻讬谉 注诇 讛注讬专 讜注诇 讛注讝专讜转 讗诇讗 讘诪诇讱 讜谞讘讬讗 讜讗讜专讬诐 讜转讜诪讬诐 讜讘住谞讛讚专讬谉 砖诇 砖讘注讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讜讘砖转讬 转讜讚讜转 讜讘砖讬专

The baraita continues: As for the upper pond, whose consecration was incomplete, amei ha鈥檃retz would enter into there and partake of offerings of lesser sanctity there, but they would not partake of second tithe there. And 岣verim 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.

讜诇诪讛 拽讬讚砖讜讛 诇诪讛 拽讬讚砖讜讛 讛讗 讗诪专转 诇讗 拽讬讚砖讜讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讛 讛讻谞讬住讜讛 诪驻谞讬 砖转讜专驻讛 砖诇 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讛讬转讛 讜谞讜讞讛 讛讬讗 诇讬讻讘砖 诪砖诐

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鈥檛 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 Na岣an, who holds that there is no need for all of the procedures listed in the mishna in order for the consecration to be complete.

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 砖诪注转讬 讻砖讛讬讜 讘讜谞讬谉 讘讛讬讻诇 注砖讜 拽诇注讬诐 诇讛讬讻诇 讜拽诇注讬诐 诇注讝专讜转 讗诇讗 砖讘讛讬讻诇 讘讜谞讬谉 诪讘讞讜抓 讜讘注讝专讜转 讘讜谞讬谉 诪讘驻谞讬诐

The Gemara rejects this proof: This is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 砖诪注转讬 砖诪拽专讬讘讬谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讬转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 拽诇注讬诐 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讜诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讞讜诪讛 诪驻谞讬 砖拽讚讜砖讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 拽讬讚砖讛 诇砖注转讛 讜拽讬讚砖讛 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗 诇讗讜 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 诇讗 拽讬讚砖讛 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗

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鈥檌m.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 拽讚讜砖讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 拽讬讚砖讛 诇砖注转讛 讜拽讬讚砖讛 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗 讜诪专 诪讗讬 讚砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 拽讗诪专 讜诪专 诪讗讬 讚砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 拽讗诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 拽诇注讬诐 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇爪谞讬注讜转讗 讘注诇诪讗

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.

讗诇讗 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇诪讛 诪谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗转 讗诇讜 砖讻砖注诇讜 讘谞讬 讛讙讜诇讛 诪爪讗讜 讗诇讜 讜拽讬讚砖讜诐 讗讘诇 专讗砖讜谞讜转 讘讟诇讜 诪砖讘讟诇讛 讛讗专抓 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 拽讚讜砖讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 拽讬讚砖讛 诇砖注转讛 讜诇讗 拽讬讚砖讛 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗

Rather, this matter is subject to a dispute between these tanna鈥檌m, 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.

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讻讬 讗诇讜 讘诇讘讚 讛讬讜 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 砖砖讬诐 注讬专 讻诇 讞讘诇 讗专讙讘 诪诪诇讻转 注讜讙 讘讘砖谉 讻诇 讗诇讛 注专讬诐 讘爪专讜转 讞讜诪讛 讙讘讛讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讛 诪谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗转 讗诇讜 砖讻砖注诇讜 讘谞讬 讛讙讜诇讛 诪爪讗讜 讗诇讜 讜拽讬讚砖讜诐

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鈥檛 it already stated: 鈥淪ixty cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og, king of Bashan, all these were cities fortified with high walls, gates and bars鈥 (Deuteronomy 3:4鈥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.

拽讬讚砖讜诐 讛砖转讗 讛讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇拽诪谉 讚诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇拽讚讜砖讬 讗诇讗 诪爪讗讜 讗诇讜 讜诪谞讗讜诐

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

讜诇讗 讗诇讜 讘诇讘讚 讗诇讗 讻诇 砖转注诇讛 讘讬讚讱 诪住讜专转 诪讗讘讜转讬讱 砖诪讜拽驻转 讞讜诪讛 诪讬诪讜转 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 谞讜谉 讻诇 诪爪讜转 讗诇讜 谞讜讛讙讜转 讘讛 诪驻谞讬 砖拽讚讜砖讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 拽讬讚砖讛 诇砖注转讛 讜拽讬讚砖讛 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专 讬讜住讬 讗讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专 讬讜住讬

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.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 转专讬 转谞讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专 讬讜住讬 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讞讚讗 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 讬讜住讬 讗诪专讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗砖专 诇讜讗 讞诪讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 注讻砖讬讜 讜讛讬讛 诇讜 拽讜讚诐 诇讻谉

The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that there are two tanna鈥檌m who disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael bar Yosei. Each transmitted Rabbi Yishmael鈥檚 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: 鈥淲hich has [lo] a wall鈥 (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.

谞讟诪讗 讘注讝专讛 讜谞注诇诪讛 诪诪谞讜 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讻讜壮 讟讜诪讗讛 讘注讝专讛 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讗转 诪砖讻谉 讛壮 讟诪讗 讜讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讻讬 讗转 诪拽讚砖 讛壮 讟诪讗 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讟讜诪讗讛 砖讘讞讜抓 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讟讜诪讗讛 砖讘驻谞讬诐

搂 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: 鈥淗e has defiled the Tabernacle of the Lord鈥 (Numbers 19:13), and one verse states: 鈥淔or he has defiled the Temple of the Lord鈥 (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.

讜拽专讗讬 诪讬转专讬 讛讗 诪讬爪专讱 爪专讬讻讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 谞讗诪专 诪砖讻谉 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 诪拽讚砖 讜讗诐 谞讗诪专 诪拽讚砖 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 诪砖讻谉 讗讬诇讜 谞讗诪专 诪砖讻谉 讜诇讗 谞讗诪专 诪拽讚砖 讛讬讬转讬 讗讜诪专 注诇 诪砖讻谉 讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 砖讛专讬 诪砖讜讞 讘砖诪谉 讛诪砖讞讛 讜注诇 诪拽讚砖 诇讗 讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诐 谞讗诪专 诪拽讚砖 讜诇讗 谞讗诪专 诪砖讻谉 讛讬讬转讬 讗讜诪专 注诇 诪拽讚砖 讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 砖讛专讬 拽讚讜砖转讜 拽讚讜砖转 注讜诇诐 讜注诇 诪砖讻谉 诇讗 讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 诇讻讱 谞讗诪专 诪砖讻谉 诇讻讱 谞讗诪专 诪拽讚砖

The Gemara asks: But is it really superfluous to have both of these verses, one having been sufficient? Aren鈥檛 they each necessary to teach a novel ruling? As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar says: If it is stated: 鈥淭abernacle,鈥 why does it state: 鈥淭emple鈥? And if it is stated: 鈥淭emple,鈥 why does it state: 鈥淭abernacle鈥? He explains: Had the verse stated only: 鈥淭abernacle,鈥 and not stated: 鈥淭emple,鈥 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: 鈥淭emple,鈥 and not stated: 鈥淭abernacle,鈥 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: 鈥淭abernacle,鈥 and for this reason, it is stated: 鈥淭emple.鈥

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讻讬 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讻讚讬 诪砖讻谉 讗讬拽专讬 诪拽讚砖 讜诪拽讚砖 讗讬拽专讬 诪砖讻谉 谞讻转讜讘 讗讜 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诪拽讚砖 讗讜 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诪砖讻谉 诪砖讻谉 讜诪拽讚砖 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

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 鈥淭abernacle鈥 and 鈥淭emple鈥? 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 诪拽讚砖 讗讬拽专讬 诪砖讻谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞转转讬 诪砖讻谞讬 讘转讜讻讻诐 讗诇讗 诪砖讻谉 讚讗讬拽专讬 诪拽讚砖 诪谞诇谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讚讻转讬讘 讜谞住注讜 讛拽讛转讬诐 谞砖讗讬 讛诪拽讚砖 讛讛讜讗 讘讗专讜谉 讻转讬讘 讗诇讗 诪讛讻讗 讜注砖讜 诇讬 诪拽讚砖 讜砖讻谞转讬 讘转讜讻诐 讜讻转讬讘 讻讻诇 讗砖专 讗谞讬 诪专讗讛 讗讜转讱 讗转 转讘谞讬转 讛诪砖讻谉

The Gemara questions its previous assumption: Granted, the Temple is also called Tabernacle, as it is written: 鈥淎nd I will set My Tabernacle among you鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd the Kehatites, the bearers of the Temple, set forward鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd let them make Me a Temple, that I may dwell among them鈥 (Exodus 25:8), where the reference is to the Tabernacle, as immediately afterward it is written: 鈥淎ccording to all that I show you, the pattern of the Tabernacle鈥 (Exodus 25:9).

讜讛砖转讞讜讛 讗讜 砖砖讛讛 讻讚讬 讛砖转讞讜讗讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讛砖转讞讜讛 讻诇驻讬 驻谞讬诐 讗讘诇 讛砖转讞讜讛 讻诇驻讬 讞讜抓 砖讛讛 讗讬谉 诇讗 砖讛讛 诇讗

搂 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.

讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗 讗讜 砖砖讛讛 讘讻讚讬 讛砖转讞讜讗讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讛砖转讞讜讗讛 讙讜驻讛 讘注讬讗 砖讛讬讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讛砖转讞讜讛 讻诇驻讬 讞讜抓 讗讘诇 讻诇驻讬 驻谞讬诐 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 砖讛讛 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛砖转讞讜讛 讻诇驻讬 驻谞讬诐 讗讜 砖砖讛讛 讻讚讬 讛砖转讞讜讗讛 讘讛讱 讛砖转讞讜讗讛 讚讻诇驻讬 讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘

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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讛砖转讞讜讗讛 讚讗讬转 讘讛 砖讛讬讬讛 讜讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讛砖转讞讜讗讛 讚诇讬转 讘讛 砖讛讬讬讛 讚诇讬转 讘讛 砖讛讬讬讛 讝讜 讻专讬注讛 讘注诇诪讗 讛讬讗 讚讗讬转 讘讛 砖讛讬讬讛 驻讬砖讜讟 讬讚讬诐 讜专讙诇讬诐

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鈥檚 arms and legs in total submission.

讜讻诪讛 砖讬注讜专 砖讛讬讬讛 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讜讞讚 讚注讬诪讬讛 讜诪谞讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讜讞讚 讚注讬诪讬讛 讜诪谞讜 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讞讚 讗诪专 讻诪讬诪专讬讛 讚讛讗讬 驻住讜拽讗 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讻诪讜讬讻专注讜 诇住讬驻讗 讜讻诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 专讗讬诐 讘专讚转 讛讗砖 讜讻讘讜讚 讛壮 注诇 讛讘讬转 讜讬讻专注讜 讗驻讬诐 讗专爪讛 注诇 讛专爪驻讛 讜讬砖转讞讜讜 讜讛讜讚讜转 诇讛壮 讻讬 讟讜讘 讻讬 诇注讜诇诐 讞住讚讜

The Gemara asks: And what is the measure of that tarrying? Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Na岣ani 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 Yitz岣k bar Na岣ani. And some say it was Rabbi Shimon bar Na岣ani. 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 鈥渁nd they bowed鈥 in the middle of that verse until the end. What is the verse? 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (II聽Chronicles 7:3).

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 拽讬讚讛 注诇 讗驻讬诐 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜转拽讚 讘转 砖讘注 讗驻讬诐 讗专抓 讻专讬注讛 注诇 讘专讻讬诐 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诪讻专注 注诇 讘专讻讬讜 讛砖转讞讜讗讛 讝讜 驻讬砖讜讟 讬讚讬诐 讜专讙诇讬诐 讜讻谉 讗讜诪专 讛讘讜讗 谞讘讜讗 讗谞讬 讜讗诪讱 讜讗讞讬讱 诇讛砖转讞讜转 诇讱 讗专爪讛

The Gemara discusses the different forms of bowing in greater detail. The Sages taught: The term kidda indicates falling upon one鈥檚 face, and so the verse states: 鈥淭hen Bathsheba bowed [vatikkod] with her face to the ground鈥 (I聽Kings 1:31). Keria means descending upon one鈥檚 knees, and so the verse states with regard to Solomon: 鈥淗e rose from before the altar of the Lord, from kneeling [mikero鈥檃] upon his knees鈥 (I聽Kings 8:54). Hishta岣va鈥檃, this is prostrating oneself while spreading聽one鈥檚聽arms and legs in total submission, and so the verse states that Jacob asked, in response to Joseph鈥檚 relating of his dream: 鈥淪hall I and your mother and your brothers indeed come to bow down [lehishta岣vot] to you to the ground鈥 (Genesis 37:10), i.e., spread out completely on the ground.

讘注讬 专讘讗 爪专讬讱 砖讛讬讬讛 诇诪诇拽讜转 讗讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 砖讛讬讬讛 诇诪诇拽讜转 诇拽专讘谉 讙诪讬专讬 砖讛讬讬讛 诇诪诇拽讜转 诇讗 讙诪讬专讬 砖讛讬讬讛

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鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

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

注诇 驻讬 谞讘讬讗 谞讗讻诇转 讜注诇 驻讬 谞讘讬讗 谞砖专驻转

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鈥檚 reconsecration of Jerusalem, instructed the people concerning how the ceremony should be conducted, without providing reasons for the procedures.

讻诇 砖诇讗 谞注砖讬转 讘讻诇 讗诇讜 讻讜壮 讗讬转诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讘讻诇 讗诇讜 转谞谉 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讘讗讞转 诪讻诇 讗诇讜 转谞谉

搂 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鈥檌m 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 Na岣an 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.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讘讻诇 讗诇讜 转谞谉 拽住讘专 拽讚讜砖讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 拽讬讚砖讛 诇砖注转讛 讜拽讬讚砖讛 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗 讜注讝专讗 讝讻专 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚注讘讚

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.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讘讗讞转 诪讻诇 讗诇讜 转谞谉 拽住讘专 拽讚讜砖讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 拽讬讚砖讛 诇砖注转讛 讜诇讗 拽讬讚砖讛 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗 讜注讝专讗 拽讚讜砖讬 拽讚讬砖 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讛讜讜 讗讜专讬诐 讜转讜诪讬诐

Rav Na岣an 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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻诇 砖诇讗 谞注砖讬转 讘讻诇 讗诇讜 转谞讬 讘讗讞转 诪讻诇 讗诇讜

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

转讗 砖诪注 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬 讘讬爪注讬谉 讛讬讜 讘讛专 讛诪砖讞讛 转讞转讜谞讛 讜注诇讬讜谞讛 转讞转讜谞讛 谞转拽讚砖讛 讘讻诇 讗诇讜 注诇讬讜谞讛 诇讗 谞转拽讚砖讛 讘讻诇 讗诇讜 讗诇讗 讘注讜诇讬 讙讜诇讛 砖诇讗 讘诪诇讱 讜砖诇讗 讘讗讜专讬诐 讜转讜诪讬诐

The Gemara cites a proof against the opinion of Rav Na岣an: Come and hear a baraita: Abba Shaul says: There were two ponds [bitzin] on the Mount of Olives [Har HaMish岣], 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.

转讞转讜谞讛 砖讛讬转讛 拽讚讜砖转讛 讙诪讜专讛 注诪讬 讛讗专抓 谞讻谞住讬谉 诇砖诐 讜讗讜讻诇讬谉 砖诐 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讞讘专讬诐 讗讜讻诇讬诐 砖诐 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讜诪注砖专 砖谞讬

The baraita continues: With regard to the lower pond, whose consecration was complete, amei ha鈥檃retz, 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 岣verim, who were meticulous in their observance of those mitzvot, would partake of both offerings of lesser sanctity and second tithe there.

注诇讬讜谞讛 砖诇讗 讛讬转讛 拽讚讜砖转讛 讙诪讜专讛 注诪讬 讛讗专抓 讛讬讜 谞讻谞住讬谉 砖诐 讜讗讜讻诇讬谉 砖诐 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讞讘专讬诐 讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 砖诐 诇讗 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讜诇讗 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诇讗 拽讬讚砖讜讛 砖讗讬谉 诪讜住讬驻讬谉 注诇 讛注讬专 讜注诇 讛注讝专讜转 讗诇讗 讘诪诇讱 讜谞讘讬讗 讜讗讜专讬诐 讜转讜诪讬诐 讜讘住谞讛讚专讬谉 砖诇 砖讘注讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讜讘砖转讬 转讜讚讜转 讜讘砖讬专

The baraita continues: As for the upper pond, whose consecration was incomplete, amei ha鈥檃retz would enter into there and partake of offerings of lesser sanctity there, but they would not partake of second tithe there. And 岣verim 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.

讜诇诪讛 拽讬讚砖讜讛 诇诪讛 拽讬讚砖讜讛 讛讗 讗诪专转 诇讗 拽讬讚砖讜讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讛 讛讻谞讬住讜讛 诪驻谞讬 砖转讜专驻讛 砖诇 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讛讬转讛 讜谞讜讞讛 讛讬讗 诇讬讻讘砖 诪砖诐

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鈥檛 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 Na岣an, who holds that there is no need for all of the procedures listed in the mishna in order for the consecration to be complete.

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 砖诪注转讬 讻砖讛讬讜 讘讜谞讬谉 讘讛讬讻诇 注砖讜 拽诇注讬诐 诇讛讬讻诇 讜拽诇注讬诐 诇注讝专讜转 讗诇讗 砖讘讛讬讻诇 讘讜谞讬谉 诪讘讞讜抓 讜讘注讝专讜转 讘讜谞讬谉 诪讘驻谞讬诐

The Gemara rejects this proof: This is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 砖诪注转讬 砖诪拽专讬讘讬谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讬转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 拽诇注讬诐 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讜诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讞讜诪讛 诪驻谞讬 砖拽讚讜砖讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 拽讬讚砖讛 诇砖注转讛 讜拽讬讚砖讛 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗 诇讗讜 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 诇讗 拽讬讚砖讛 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗

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鈥檌m.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 拽讚讜砖讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 拽讬讚砖讛 诇砖注转讛 讜拽讬讚砖讛 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗 讜诪专 诪讗讬 讚砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 拽讗诪专 讜诪专 诪讗讬 讚砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 拽讗诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 拽诇注讬诐 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇爪谞讬注讜转讗 讘注诇诪讗

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.

讗诇讗 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇诪讛 诪谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗转 讗诇讜 砖讻砖注诇讜 讘谞讬 讛讙讜诇讛 诪爪讗讜 讗诇讜 讜拽讬讚砖讜诐 讗讘诇 专讗砖讜谞讜转 讘讟诇讜 诪砖讘讟诇讛 讛讗专抓 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 拽讚讜砖讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 拽讬讚砖讛 诇砖注转讛 讜诇讗 拽讬讚砖讛 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗

Rather, this matter is subject to a dispute between these tanna鈥檌m, 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.

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讻讬 讗诇讜 讘诇讘讚 讛讬讜 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 砖砖讬诐 注讬专 讻诇 讞讘诇 讗专讙讘 诪诪诇讻转 注讜讙 讘讘砖谉 讻诇 讗诇讛 注专讬诐 讘爪专讜转 讞讜诪讛 讙讘讛讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讛 诪谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗转 讗诇讜 砖讻砖注诇讜 讘谞讬 讛讙讜诇讛 诪爪讗讜 讗诇讜 讜拽讬讚砖讜诐

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鈥檛 it already stated: 鈥淪ixty cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og, king of Bashan, all these were cities fortified with high walls, gates and bars鈥 (Deuteronomy 3:4鈥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.

拽讬讚砖讜诐 讛砖转讗 讛讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇拽诪谉 讚诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇拽讚讜砖讬 讗诇讗 诪爪讗讜 讗诇讜 讜诪谞讗讜诐

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

讜诇讗 讗诇讜 讘诇讘讚 讗诇讗 讻诇 砖转注诇讛 讘讬讚讱 诪住讜专转 诪讗讘讜转讬讱 砖诪讜拽驻转 讞讜诪讛 诪讬诪讜转 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 谞讜谉 讻诇 诪爪讜转 讗诇讜 谞讜讛讙讜转 讘讛 诪驻谞讬 砖拽讚讜砖讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 拽讬讚砖讛 诇砖注转讛 讜拽讬讚砖讛 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专 讬讜住讬 讗讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专 讬讜住讬

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.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 转专讬 转谞讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专 讬讜住讬 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讞讚讗 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 讬讜住讬 讗诪专讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗砖专 诇讜讗 讞诪讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 注讻砖讬讜 讜讛讬讛 诇讜 拽讜讚诐 诇讻谉

The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that there are two tanna鈥檌m who disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael bar Yosei. Each transmitted Rabbi Yishmael鈥檚 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: 鈥淲hich has [lo] a wall鈥 (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.

谞讟诪讗 讘注讝专讛 讜谞注诇诪讛 诪诪谞讜 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讻讜壮 讟讜诪讗讛 讘注讝专讛 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讗转 诪砖讻谉 讛壮 讟诪讗 讜讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讻讬 讗转 诪拽讚砖 讛壮 讟诪讗 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讟讜诪讗讛 砖讘讞讜抓 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讟讜诪讗讛 砖讘驻谞讬诐

搂 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: 鈥淗e has defiled the Tabernacle of the Lord鈥 (Numbers 19:13), and one verse states: 鈥淔or he has defiled the Temple of the Lord鈥 (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.

讜拽专讗讬 诪讬转专讬 讛讗 诪讬爪专讱 爪专讬讻讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 谞讗诪专 诪砖讻谉 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 诪拽讚砖 讜讗诐 谞讗诪专 诪拽讚砖 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 诪砖讻谉 讗讬诇讜 谞讗诪专 诪砖讻谉 讜诇讗 谞讗诪专 诪拽讚砖 讛讬讬转讬 讗讜诪专 注诇 诪砖讻谉 讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 砖讛专讬 诪砖讜讞 讘砖诪谉 讛诪砖讞讛 讜注诇 诪拽讚砖 诇讗 讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诐 谞讗诪专 诪拽讚砖 讜诇讗 谞讗诪专 诪砖讻谉 讛讬讬转讬 讗讜诪专 注诇 诪拽讚砖 讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 砖讛专讬 拽讚讜砖转讜 拽讚讜砖转 注讜诇诐 讜注诇 诪砖讻谉 诇讗 讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 诇讻讱 谞讗诪专 诪砖讻谉 诇讻讱 谞讗诪专 诪拽讚砖

The Gemara asks: But is it really superfluous to have both of these verses, one having been sufficient? Aren鈥檛 they each necessary to teach a novel ruling? As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar says: If it is stated: 鈥淭abernacle,鈥 why does it state: 鈥淭emple鈥? And if it is stated: 鈥淭emple,鈥 why does it state: 鈥淭abernacle鈥? He explains: Had the verse stated only: 鈥淭abernacle,鈥 and not stated: 鈥淭emple,鈥 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: 鈥淭emple,鈥 and not stated: 鈥淭abernacle,鈥 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: 鈥淭abernacle,鈥 and for this reason, it is stated: 鈥淭emple.鈥

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讻讬 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讻讚讬 诪砖讻谉 讗讬拽专讬 诪拽讚砖 讜诪拽讚砖 讗讬拽专讬 诪砖讻谉 谞讻转讜讘 讗讜 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诪拽讚砖 讗讜 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诪砖讻谉 诪砖讻谉 讜诪拽讚砖 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

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 鈥淭abernacle鈥 and 鈥淭emple鈥? 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 诪拽讚砖 讗讬拽专讬 诪砖讻谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞转转讬 诪砖讻谞讬 讘转讜讻讻诐 讗诇讗 诪砖讻谉 讚讗讬拽专讬 诪拽讚砖 诪谞诇谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讚讻转讬讘 讜谞住注讜 讛拽讛转讬诐 谞砖讗讬 讛诪拽讚砖 讛讛讜讗 讘讗专讜谉 讻转讬讘 讗诇讗 诪讛讻讗 讜注砖讜 诇讬 诪拽讚砖 讜砖讻谞转讬 讘转讜讻诐 讜讻转讬讘 讻讻诇 讗砖专 讗谞讬 诪专讗讛 讗讜转讱 讗转 转讘谞讬转 讛诪砖讻谉

The Gemara questions its previous assumption: Granted, the Temple is also called Tabernacle, as it is written: 鈥淎nd I will set My Tabernacle among you鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd the Kehatites, the bearers of the Temple, set forward鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd let them make Me a Temple, that I may dwell among them鈥 (Exodus 25:8), where the reference is to the Tabernacle, as immediately afterward it is written: 鈥淎ccording to all that I show you, the pattern of the Tabernacle鈥 (Exodus 25:9).

讜讛砖转讞讜讛 讗讜 砖砖讛讛 讻讚讬 讛砖转讞讜讗讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讛砖转讞讜讛 讻诇驻讬 驻谞讬诐 讗讘诇 讛砖转讞讜讛 讻诇驻讬 讞讜抓 砖讛讛 讗讬谉 诇讗 砖讛讛 诇讗

搂 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.

讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗 讗讜 砖砖讛讛 讘讻讚讬 讛砖转讞讜讗讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讛砖转讞讜讗讛 讙讜驻讛 讘注讬讗 砖讛讬讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讛砖转讞讜讛 讻诇驻讬 讞讜抓 讗讘诇 讻诇驻讬 驻谞讬诐 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 砖讛讛 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛砖转讞讜讛 讻诇驻讬 驻谞讬诐 讗讜 砖砖讛讛 讻讚讬 讛砖转讞讜讗讛 讘讛讱 讛砖转讞讜讗讛 讚讻诇驻讬 讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘

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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讛砖转讞讜讗讛 讚讗讬转 讘讛 砖讛讬讬讛 讜讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讛砖转讞讜讗讛 讚诇讬转 讘讛 砖讛讬讬讛 讚诇讬转 讘讛 砖讛讬讬讛 讝讜 讻专讬注讛 讘注诇诪讗 讛讬讗 讚讗讬转 讘讛 砖讛讬讬讛 驻讬砖讜讟 讬讚讬诐 讜专讙诇讬诐

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鈥檚 arms and legs in total submission.

讜讻诪讛 砖讬注讜专 砖讛讬讬讛 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讜讞讚 讚注讬诪讬讛 讜诪谞讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讜讞讚 讚注讬诪讬讛 讜诪谞讜 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讞讚 讗诪专 讻诪讬诪专讬讛 讚讛讗讬 驻住讜拽讗 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讻诪讜讬讻专注讜 诇住讬驻讗 讜讻诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 专讗讬诐 讘专讚转 讛讗砖 讜讻讘讜讚 讛壮 注诇 讛讘讬转 讜讬讻专注讜 讗驻讬诐 讗专爪讛 注诇 讛专爪驻讛 讜讬砖转讞讜讜 讜讛讜讚讜转 诇讛壮 讻讬 讟讜讘 讻讬 诇注讜诇诐 讞住讚讜

The Gemara asks: And what is the measure of that tarrying? Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Na岣ani 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 Yitz岣k bar Na岣ani. And some say it was Rabbi Shimon bar Na岣ani. 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 鈥渁nd they bowed鈥 in the middle of that verse until the end. What is the verse? 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (II聽Chronicles 7:3).

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 拽讬讚讛 注诇 讗驻讬诐 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜转拽讚 讘转 砖讘注 讗驻讬诐 讗专抓 讻专讬注讛 注诇 讘专讻讬诐 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诪讻专注 注诇 讘专讻讬讜 讛砖转讞讜讗讛 讝讜 驻讬砖讜讟 讬讚讬诐 讜专讙诇讬诐 讜讻谉 讗讜诪专 讛讘讜讗 谞讘讜讗 讗谞讬 讜讗诪讱 讜讗讞讬讱 诇讛砖转讞讜转 诇讱 讗专爪讛

The Gemara discusses the different forms of bowing in greater detail. The Sages taught: The term kidda indicates falling upon one鈥檚 face, and so the verse states: 鈥淭hen Bathsheba bowed [vatikkod] with her face to the ground鈥 (I聽Kings 1:31). Keria means descending upon one鈥檚 knees, and so the verse states with regard to Solomon: 鈥淗e rose from before the altar of the Lord, from kneeling [mikero鈥檃] upon his knees鈥 (I聽Kings 8:54). Hishta岣va鈥檃, this is prostrating oneself while spreading聽one鈥檚聽arms and legs in total submission, and so the verse states that Jacob asked, in response to Joseph鈥檚 relating of his dream: 鈥淪hall I and your mother and your brothers indeed come to bow down [lehishta岣vot] to you to the ground鈥 (Genesis 37:10), i.e., spread out completely on the ground.

讘注讬 专讘讗 爪专讬讱 砖讛讬讬讛 诇诪诇拽讜转 讗讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 砖讛讬讬讛 诇诪诇拽讜转 诇拽专讘谉 讙诪讬专讬 砖讛讬讬讛 诇诪诇拽讜转 诇讗 讙诪讬专讬 砖讛讬讬讛

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