Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) IS EVERY DETAIL ESSENTIAL?

(a) (Mishnah): An addition that was not made with all of these (does not get Kedushah).
(b) (Rav Huna): This is the correct text.
(c) (Rav Nachman): The text should say, an addition that was not made with *one of these* (does not get Kedushah).

1. (According to Rav Huna, Ezra could not Mekadesh the second Mikdash, since they lacked the Urim v'Tumim;)

i. He must hold that when Shlomo was Mekadesh the Mikdash, the place became permanently Mekudash, Ezra's actions were only a *remembrance* of Kidush.

2. (According to Rav Nachman, Ezra was Mekadesh the second Mikdash, even without the Urim v'Tumim;

i. He holds that the Kedushah of the first Mikdash had ceased.

(d) Question (Rava - Mishnah): An addition that was not made with all of these (does not get Kedushah).
(e) Answer (Rav Nachman): The text should say, an addition that was not made with *one of these*.
(f) Question (Beraisa - Aba Sha'ul): There were two swamps on the Mount of Olives, the lower one was Mekudash with everything mentioned in the Mishnah (during the first Mikdash), the upper one was Mekudash by the exiles who returned from Bavel, without a king or the Urim v'Tumim;

1. The lower swamp had full Kedushah; ignoramuses would eat Kodshim Kalim there, but not Ma'aser Sheni; Chaverim (people who properly guard the laws) would eat Kodshim Kalim and Ma'aser Sheni there;
2. The upper swamp did not have full Kedushah; ignoramuses would eat Kodshim Kalim there, but not Ma'aser Sheni; Chaverim would not eat Kodshim Kalim nor Ma'aser Sheni there.

i. They could not fully Mekadesh it, for to add on to Yerushalayim or the Azarah we need a king, a prophet, the Urim v'Tumim, the great Sanhedrin of 71, two loaves of a Todah and singing.

3. Question: Why did they Mekadesh it?
4. Objection: The Beraisa just said that they could not Mekadesh it!
5. Correction: Rather, why did they build a new wall including it with Yerushalayim?
6. Because it was they easiest place for enemies to attack from and conquer Yerushalayim.

(g) Answer: Tana'im argue (as follows) whether or not the Kedushah of the first Mikdash ceased (and Rav Nachman holds like the opinion that it ceased).

(a) (Beraisa - R. Eliezer): I have a tradition that when building the Heichal and the walls of the Azaros, they set up curtains;

1. The builders of the Heichal were outside the curtains (of the Heichal), the builders of the Azaros were inside the curtains (of the Azaros).

(b) R. Yehoshua: I have a tradition that we may bring sacrifices even though the Mikdash is not standing; Kodshei Kodoshim may be eaten (where the Azarah should be) even though there are no curtains, Kodshim Kalim and Ma'aser Sheni may be eaten (in Yerushalayim) even though the wall is not standing.

1. This is because Shlomo's Kedushah was permanent.
2. Suggestion: R. Eliezer argues, he holds that Shlomo's Kedushah ceased (therefore, curtains were needed in order to offer sacrifices until the building was finished)!
3. Rejection (Ravina): Perhaps all agree that Shlomo's Kedushah was permanent; each Tana said what he received!

i. Question: If so, why did they need curtains?
ii. Answer: The curtains were to prevent workers from deriving pleasure by looking at the Heichal, and to prevent people from seeing the Azarah.

(c) Rather, the following: Tana'im argue whether or not the first Kedushah ceased.
(d) (Beraisa - R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi): Chachamim (Erchin 32) lists (walled) cities that were Mekudashos by those who returned from Bavel;

1. The Kedushah of the walled cities from the period of the first Mikdash ceased when the Kedushah of Eretz Yisrael ceased (when Nebuchadnetzar conquered it).

i. This shows that R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi holds that the first Kedushah ceased.

(e) Contradiction (Beraisa - R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi): The cities (listed in Erchin 32) are not the only walled cities - Moshe conquered "Shishim Ir...Mamleches Og...Betzuros Chomah"!

1. We only list the cities that the returning exiles found and were Mekadesh.

i. Interjection: But (the end of this Beraisa says that) they did not need to Mekadesh them!

2. Correction: Rather, we listed cities known to have had a wall;

i. If there is a tradition about other cities that they had a wall when Yehoshua entered Eretz Yisrael, the Mitzvos of walled cities (one who sells a house has a year to redeem it, a Metzora cannot stay there) also apply to them, because the first Kedushah remains.

3. R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi contradicts himself!

(f) Answer #1: The Tana'im of these two Beraisos argue regarding his opinion.
(g) Answer #2: The latter Beraisa is really R. Elazar b'Rebbi Yosi.

1. (Beraisa - R. Elazar b'Rebbi Yosi): "Asher Lo Chomah" - 'Lo' is spelled with an Aleph, to hint that even if it currently does not have a wall, but once did, it is considered a walled city (because the first Kedushah remains).

3) ONE WHO BECAME "TAMEI" IN THE MIKDASH

(a) (Mishnah): If he became Tamei in the Azarah and forgot...
(b) Question: How do we know that one is liable (lashes or Kares) if he became Tamei in the Azarah (and did not leave immediately)?
(c) Answer (R. Elazar (the Amora)): It says "Es Mishkan Hash-m Timei" and "Es Mikdash Hash-m Timei";

1. We do not need two verses for when he became Tamei outside and entered, so one teaches about when he became Tamei inside.

(d) Question: We need both for when he became Tamei outside!

1. (Beraisa - (R. Elazar (the Tana)): The Torah must teach that he is liable for the Mishkan and the Mikdash, because we could not learn from one to the other.

i. If it only taught the Mishkan - one might have thought, this is because it was anointed with the anointing oil!
ii. If it only taught the Mikdash - one might have thought, this is because its Kedushah is permanent! (Rashi - once the Mikdash was built, private altars were forbidden forever; Tosfos - it endured longer than the Mishkan, or because it can only be rebuilt in the same place.)

(e) Answer: R. Elazar (the Amora) expounded the change of language.

1. Since the Mishkan is called Mikdash and vice-versa, the Torah could have written both times 'Mishkan' or 'Mikdash', and we would have known to include both;
2. It changed the language to teach another law as well (when he became Tamei inside).

(f) We know that the Mishkan is called Mikdash - "V'Nasati Mishkani b'Sochechem";
(g) Question: What is the source that the Mikdash is called Mishkan?

1. Suggestion: "V'Nase'u ha'Kehasim Nose'ei ha'Mikdash".
2. Rejection: That does not refer to the Mikdash itself, rather to the Aron (and the vessels of the Mikdash.

(h) Answer: "V'Asu Li Mikdash v'Shachanti b'Socham"..."Tavnis ha'Mishkan".

(a) (Mishnah): If one Mishtachaveh (bows) or delays long enough to Mishtachaveh...
(b) Version #1 (Rava): (He is liable for a quick Hishtachavah -) this is when he bows towards the west (where the Divine Presence is);

1. If he bows towards the east, he is liable only if he delays (the time of a proper Hishtachavah).

(c) Version #2 - Inference: He is liable for Hishtachavah only if he delays.
(d) (Rava): This is when he bows towards the east, but if he bows towards the west, he is liable even without delaying.
(e) Question: What is Hishtachavah with and without delay?
(f) Answer: Hishtachavah without delay is bending the knees; Hishtachavah with delay is prostrating on the hands and feet.
(g) Question: What is the time for Hishtachavah with delay?
(h) Answer #1 (R. Yitzchak bar Nachmani or R. Shimon ben Pazi): The time to say the verse "V'Chol Benei Yisrael ...va'Yichre'u...va'Yishtachavu..."
(i) Answer #2 (The other of R. Yitzchak bar Nachmani and R. Shimon ben Pazi): The time to say the end of this verse starting from "Va'Yichre'u".
(j) (Beraisa): 'Kidah' refers to bowing and putting one's face on the ground - "Va'Tikod Bas Sheva Apayim Eretz";

1. 'Kri'ah' is bending the knees - "Mi'Kero'a Al Birkav";
2. 'Hishtachavah' is prostrating on the hands and feet - "Lehishtachavos Lecha Artzah".