Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Shevuos, 15

1) THE THINGS NECESSARY FOR ADDING TO THE AREA OF YERUSHALAYIM OR THE BEIS HA'MIKDASH

QUESTION: The Mishnah (14a) lists the criteria necessary for adding to the area of Yerushalayim and to the courtyards of the Beis ha'Mikdash. Enlarging the area can be done only in the presence of the king, a prophet, the Urim v'Tumim, and the Sanhedrin of seventy-one judges (Sanhedri Gedolah). The Gemara asks what is the source for these requirements. Rav Simi bar Chiya says that these requirements are derived from the verse which states, with regard to building the Mishkan, "[They shall make a sanctuary for Me...] like everything that I am showing you, the form of the Mishkan and the form of all of its vessels, and so shall you do" (Shemos 25:9). Rav Simi says that "so shall you do" implies that this is what should be done *for all generations.*

(a) How does Rav Simi derive from this verse that the expansion of the holy areas needs the king, a prophet, the Urim v'Tumim, and the Sanhedri Gedolah?

(b) TOSFOS asks that if Moshe is considered a king, then whenever we derive from Moshe Rabeinu that a Sanhedrin is necessary (since Moshe Rabeinu was equivalent to the Sanhedri Gedolah, as the Gemara in Sanhedrin 16b teaches), then we should also require a king and a prophet!

(c) Tosfos asks further that the Mishkan was made before Aharon became the Kohen Gadol, and thus clearly the Urim v'Tumim was not used at the time, and thus how can we learn from the consecration of the Mishkan that the Urim v'Tumim is necessary when expanding the area of the Mikdash?

ANSWERS:

(a) RASHI explains that Rav Simi understands that the last words in the verse, "And so shall you do," seem to be extra. It is from these words that he derives that the same way the Mishkan was consecrated in the time of Moshe Rabeinu, so shall it be consecrated for all generations. Moshe was considered a king and a prophet, and his brother was the Kohen Gadol (with the Urim v'Tumim), and the seventy elders constituted the Sanhedri Gedolah.

(b) Although Tosfos remains with his second question, he concedes that the first question he asked is not difficult. This is because the phrase, "v'Chen Ta'asu" -- "and so shall you do," implies the inclusion of many things. Therefore, in the case of adding to the Mikdash we must include many requirements, whereas for other things for which we learn from Moshe Rabeinu that the Sanhedrin is necessary, we learn only that the Sanhedrin is necessary and nothing else.

(c) The RITVA answers the second question of Tosfos. He explains that the requirement for the Urim v'Tumim is based on the first part of the verse. The verse includes everything that Hashem showed ("Mar'eh") to Moshe Rabeinu. This is similar to the term "*Urim* v'Tumim." The way that Hashem communicated the directions for building the Mishkan, and the way that Hashem communicates messages through the Urim v'Tumim, are the same. Therefore, we learn from the verse that the Urim v'Tumim is also required.

Alternatively, the Gemara in Ta'anis (11a) states that Moshe served as the Kohen Gadol during the first seven days of the Mishkan's inauguration. The Ritva says that this was done with the Urim v'Tumim. (Y. Montrose)

QUESTION: The Mishnah (14a) lists the criteria necessary for adding to the area of Yerushalayim and to the courtyards of the Beis ha'Mikdash. Enlarging the area can be done only in the presence of the king, a prophet, the Urim v'Tumim, and the Sanhedrin of seventy-one judges (Sanhedri Gedolah).

TOSFOS asks that the Mishkan was made before Aharon became the Kohen Gadol, and thus clearly the Urim v'Tumim was not used for the inauguration of the Mishkan, and thus how can we learn from the inauguration of the Mishkan that the Urim v'Tumim is necessary when expanding the area of the Mikdash (see previous Insight).

Tosfos clearly states that the Urim v'Tumim was not *used* for the inauguration of the Mishkan, and not merely that it was not *present*. It follows that, according to Tosfos, when the Mishnah (which is the Halachah) requires the Urim v'Tumim whenever the area of Yerushalayim or the Mikdash is expanded, it means that the Urim v'Tumim must be *consulted*. How does Tosfos know that the Urim v'Tumim must be asked when expanding consecrated areas?

ANSWERS:

(a) The AYELES HA'SHACHAR explains as follows. Tosfos in Yoma (21b) explains that when the Gemara states that the Urim v'Tumim did not exist during the time of the second Beis ha'Mikdash, it does not mean that it was totally absent. Rather, the Gemara means that the Urim v'Tumim was present, but that it could no longer answer questions. The KESEF MISHNEH (Hilchos Beis ha'Bechirah 4:1) explains this further and says that the name of Hashem that was used when asking questions to the Urim v'Tumim and which was worn on the Urim v'Tumim was missing in the time of the second Beis ha'Mikdash. The Gemara later in Shevuos (16a) says that in the times of Ezra, they could not consecrate the areas because they were missing the Urim v'Tumim. Applying the explanation of Tosfos in Yoma to the Gemara later in Shevuos (16a), we may explain that the Gemara means that even though the Urim v'Tumim was physically present during the times of Ezra, they could not consecrate the areas. It must be because it was also necessary to ask the Urim v'Tumim, which they could no longer do.

The Ayeles ha'Shachar adds that the same question applies with regard to the necessity of having a Navi present at the consecration of areas of Yerushalayim or the Mikdash. Does the Navi had to prophesy that the consecrated area be extended, or is his presence the only thing that is required of him? Since Moshe Rabeinu was giving instructions to consecrate the Mishkan based on Hashem's word to him, perhaps it is also necessary for the Navi to prophesy in order to extend consecrated areas.

RABEINU CHAIM of Brisk states that the words spoken to Moshe by Hashem had a unique status of words of *Torah*, and not words of prophecy. According to this, we cannot learn from Moshe Rabeinu that a Navi must not only be present but must also prophesy, because the prophecies of all other Nevi'im are merely prophecies and not words of Torah. Therefore, it suffices for a Navi to be present and he does not need to prophesy. (Y. Montrose)

15b

QUESTION: The Gemara says that it is not possible that the Shtei ha'Lechem are required for extending the sanctified area of the Beis ha'Mikdash. After discussing a number of possible scenarios, the Gemara asks that the Shtei ha'Lechem could be used if we finish most of the construction before the onset of Shavu'os, and then at night right after Shavu'os we finish the remaining part, and use the Shtei ha'Lechem before they become Nosar (at sunrise)? The Gemara answers that this is not a possibility, because the Beis ha'Mikdash may not be built during the night. Abaye learns this from the verse which states, "And on the day of the erecting of the Mishkan" (Bamidbar 9:15), which teaches that the Mishkan may be erected only during the *day* and not at night.

This Gemara seems to contradict the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah (30a) and Sukah (41a) which clearly says that the third Beis ha'Mikdash might be built in the middle of the night! How do we reconcile these two Gemaras?

ANSWERS:

(a) RASHI (Rosh Hashanah 30a), TOSFOS (here, quoting the Midrash Tanchuma), and others answer that the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah and Sukah is referring only to the building of the third Beis ha'Mikdash. Unlike the first two, the third Beis ha'Mikdash will be built by "the hands of Hashem," as the verse states, "Mikdash Hashem Konenu Yadecha" -- "the Mikdash, Hashem, that Your hands established" (Shemos 15:17), and thus Hashem may build it even at night. The Gemara here in Shevuos is referring to the first two Batei Mikdash, which may not be built at night.

The MIKDASH DAVID (#1) analyzes this conclusion. He maintains that this is the view of the MINCHAS CHINUCH. The Minchas Chinuch states that although there is a prohibition against building the Beis ha'Mikdash at night, if people were to build it at night then what they built is still considered a valid Beis ha'Mikdash. Hashem is no bound by the prohibition against building the Beis ha'Mikdash at night, and thus He certainly may build it at night. Since a Beis ha'Mikdash built at night is valid, we may use the Beis ha'Mikdash that Hashem builds at night. This means that the Halachah is the same for every Beis ha'Mikdash, but the building of the third one circumvents this prohibition (since it will not be built by people, but by Hashem).

However, the Yerushalmi in Yoma (1:1) apparently argues with this approach. The Yerushalmi states clearly that if the Mishkan would be erected at night, it would be unfit to use for the Avodah. Abaye himself learns the law pertaining to the Beis ha'Mikdash from the Mishkan. The Yerushalmi is essentially saying that a Beis ha'Mikdash built at night is unfit. Accordingly, why should it make any difference if the Beis ha'Mikdash is made by Hashem? The verse requires that it be built during the day and if it is not built during the day, it is invalid!

1. The KEHILOS YAKOV (#10a) answers that there is a simple answer to this question. Even according to the Yerushalmi, the problem is not the building of the Beis ha'Mikdash at night. Rather, the problem is that a Mishkan or a Beis ha'Mikdash that is supposed to be erected by human beings must be erected in the proper time. He compares this to the Lechem ha'Panim. There is a Mitzvah for the loaves of the Lechem ha'Panim to be arranged on the Shulchan on Shabbos (see Yoma 29a). If it was done before Shabbos, it is not considered "arranged," as the arrangement was not done in its proper time. Similarly, the Mishkan had to be erected by people in the proper time. If it was not erected in the proper time, then the Mitzvah of erecting it was not fulfilled. This prevents the Avodah from being done there. However, this law applies only when there is a requirement to erect it in a certain fashion. The verse (in Shemos 15:17) reveals to us that the third Beis ha'Mikdash has different guidelines, as it is supposed to be made by Hashem. Since the building of that Beis ha'Mikdash has different guidelines, it is not relevant whether or not it is made at night.

2. The AYELES HA'SHACHAR suggests a different answer. When the Yerushalmi says that the Mishkan erected at night is unfit for the Avodah of the day, it does not mean that the Avodah is Pasul. The Mishkan was a structure which was constantly being erected and dismantled in the Midbar. The Yerushalmi is saying that if it was raised incorrectly, the obligation remained to raise it again during the day. A Beis ha'Mikdash is unlike the Mishkan, as it is a permanent structure. Accordingly, once the Beis ha'Mikdash was already erected at night it is not logical to say that we must "destroy" an intrinsically valid Beis ha'Mikdash in order to rebuild it. Hence, if we do not rebuilt it, the Korbanos brought there will be valid. Although there are usually similarities in the laws of the Mishkan and the laws of the Beis ha'Mikdash, the Yerushalmi apparently is referring only to the Mishkan. (Y. Montrose)

(b) The ME'IRI (to Sukah 41a) gives an original answer. When the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah and Sukah says that the Beis ha'Mikdash might be built at night, it does not mean that it is permitted to build it then. Rather, the Gemara is concerned that a Beis Din To'eh (a misguided Beis Din) will be responsible for the building of the Beis ha'Mikdash. Out of their fervent longing for the Beis ha'Mikdash, they might overlook the Halachah and build it even at a time when it is prohibited to do so. Such a Beis ha'Mikdash, b'Di'eved once it has been built, may be used.

The Me'iri here in Shevuos suggests another answer. The Me'iri says that the Sugya here and the Sugya here in Sukah are actually arguing about whether the Beis ha'Mikdash may be built on Yom Tov and at night. The Gemara here prohibits building the Beis ha'Mikdash on Yom Tov and at night.