Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Shimi bar Chiya learns from the Pasuk (in connection with the construction of the Mishkan) "ke'Chol Asher Ani Mar'eh Oscha ... *ve'Chein Ta'asu*" - that they later consecrate the Batei Mikdash in the same way as they consecrated the Mishkan.

(b) Besides the seventy elders, we learn the necessary participation of all the dignitaries in our Mishnah from the Mishkan - from Moshe (who was a king and a Navi) and Aharon (who was a Kohen Gadol, and who probably wore the Urim ve'Tumim [see Tosfos DH 've'Chein']).

(c) Even though the Meshichah (the anointing) that consecrated the vessels in the Mishkan - it was the Avodah, says the Beraisa, that would consecrate them from now on.

(d) The problem this Beraisa creates with Rav Shimi bar Ashi's previous D'rashah is - that based on the Pasuk "ve'Chein Ta'asu", even future should always be consecrated through Meshichah.

(a) To answer the Kashya, we learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Va'yimshachem Va'yekadesh *Osam*" - that Meshichah was confined to that generation only ("Osam" 'bi'Meshichah, ve'Lo le'Doros bi'Meshichah).
2. ... "Asher *Yesharsu* Osam ba'Kodesh" - that from then on, specifically Sheirus (Avodah) would consecrate the vessels, and not a choice of Meshichah or Sheirus (and we would have Darshened "Osam" to mean that that generation alone *had* to use Meshichah ... ).

(b) Now that we have the Pasuk "Asher Yesharsu Osam ba'Kodesh", we need "Osam" - to preclude Meshichah from future generations (otherwise we would have said that future consecrations require both Meshichah and Cheirus).

(a) Nechemyah too, used two Todos for the consecration of the walls of Yerushalayim. The procession walked - along the top of the wall, whilst the Todos were carried outside the wall (see Tosfos Amud Beis DH 'Amtu'. See also "Maharatz Chiyos').

(b) They walked - towards their right (like we do during the Hakafos).

(c) When the Pasuk refers to "Sh'tei Todos Gedolos", it cannot mean the largest species, because then it should have written specifically 'bulls'. Neither can it mean large animals, which would not have warranted mention. Because from the fact that the Torah writes "Isheh Rei'ach Nicho'ach" by animals and bird-offerings and by flour-offerings, we learn - that it is not the size of the Korban that counts, but the devotion that accompanies it (see Ritva).

(d) Consequently, Rav Chisda concludes - the Pasuk must be referring to the largest of the species of Lachmei Todah (the Chametz loaves as we shall see shortly), corroborating the ruling of the Beraisa, which establishes the 'Todah' in our Mishnah as bread (precluding the animals).

(a) We have learned in the Mishnah in Menachos, that five Sa'ah Yerushalmiyos (which was originally six Midbariyos) were used for the bread of the Todah - the equivalent of two Eifah.

(b) The Todah comprised four species of loaves, three of Matzos and one of Chametz.

(c) Bearing in mind that there were twenty Isronos of an Eifah (an Isaron is 'a tenth'), and that ten of these were used for the Matzah loaves, and ten for the Chametz loaves - each Chametz loaf was therefore three times the size of a Matzah one.

(a) According to Rami bar Chama, the Azarah itself can only be consecrated by the leftovers of the Minchah, because, he says - like the consecration of Yerushalayim (which we learn from Nechemyah), the Azarah must be consecrated by something that can be eaten inside it.

(b) The problem with this is - why the Lachmei Todah, which can also be eaten in the Azarah, should not be eligible too.

(c) So we amend his reason to read - that, like Yerushalayim, the Azarah can only be consecrated with something that will become Pasul if it leaves its confines (which the Todah, which is Kodshim Kalim, and can be eaten anywhere in Yerushalayim, will not).

6)

(a) What is basically wrong with the suggestion that, the Azarah, like Yerushalayim, must be consecrated with Chametz loaves is - the fact that there is no such thing as a Chametz Minchah (seeing as all Menachos must be baked Matzah).

(b) Neither is it possible to make the leftovers Chametz, in order to use them for the consecration, because of Resh Lakish, who learns from the juxtaposition of "Chelkam" to "Lo Se'afeh Chametz" - that even the part of the Minchah that is eaten by the Kohanim may not be baked Chametz.

(c) There is however, one Minchah that is baked Chametz - the Sh'tei ha'Lechem on Shevu'os.

(d) It is not possible to require the Beis-Hamikdash to be built at Shevu'os time, in order to consecrate it with the Sh'tei ha'Lechem - because either the building or the consecration will cause problems, as we shall now see.

(a) It is not possible to build the Beis-Hamikdash on Erev Shavu'os and to consecrate it ...

1. ... then - because the Sh'tei ha'Lechem only become sanctified with the Shechitah of the two lambs (which are brought together with them, on Shavu'os).
2. ... on Shavu'os - because the consecration must take place on the same day that the Beis-Hamikdash is built.

(b) Nor can one not build the Beis-Hamikdash ...

1. ... on Yom-Tov and consecrate it on Yom-Tov - because the building of the Beis-Hamikdash does not override Yom-Tov.
2. ... after Yom-Tov and consecrate it then - because by that time the Sh'tei ha'Lechem will be Pasul be'Linah (by remaining uneaten until the morning, like all Kodshei Kodshim).

(c) The only other possibility that remains is - to build the Beis-Hamikdash on Erev Yom-Tov, leaving a little to be completed on Motza'ei Yom-Tov (before midnight [mi'de'Rabbanan]), and to consecrate it then (before the Sh'tei ha'Lecham become Pasul be'Linah [at daybreak, mi'd'Oraysa]).

(d) We reject that too, however, based on the Pasuk "*u've'Yom* Hakim es ha'Mishkan" - from which we learn that the Beis-Hamikdash cannot be built at night-time.

(a) The Berasia discusses the Shir - where they played harps, violins and cymbals ...

(b) ... which were placed - in every corner and on every large stone in Yerushalayim.

(c) Besides 'Mizmor le'Sodah' and 'Aromimcha Hashem ' (the Song of Consecration), they also played/sang 'Yoshev be'Seiser Elyon' (until "Ki Atah Hashem Machsi ... "), which is called ...

1. ... 'Shir shel Nega'im' (meaning 'plagues') - because it contains the phrase "ve'Nega Lo Yikrav be''Ohalecha".
2. ... 'Shir shel Pega'im' (meaning 'misfortunes') - because of the phrase "Yipol mi'Tzidcha Elef" (which teaches us that when Hashem is with us, misfortunes will circumvent us).

(d) Finally, they sang Kapitel 3 ('Mizmor le'David, be'Vorcho Mipnei Avshalom B'no') - because it describes the derision of Yehudah and Binyamin's enemies, as Yehudah and Binyamin labored to erect the walls of Yerushalayim (the success of which is heralded by the current ceremony).

(a) The problem with Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who would recite 'Sir shel Pega'im' before going to sleep is - that he himself issued another ruling forbidding the use of Torah as a cure.

(b) We resolve the problem - by confining the latter to where there is already a wound (to preclude the use of Pesukim to shield one from becoming sick).

(c) The Mishnah in Sanhedrin states that someone who 'whispers Pesukim over a wound ('ha'Lochesh al ha'Makah') - loses his portion in Olam ha'Ba.

(d) This creates a problem with Rebbi Yehosha ben Levi, whose statement (merely forbidding the use of Pesukim to cure an illness) appears to clash with it. We resolve the problem however, by citing Rebbi Yochanan, who establish that Mishnah - by someone who also spits before reciting the Pesukim.

(a) Our Mishnah implies that the Sanhedrin walked in front of the two Todah loaves. To reconcile this with the Pasuk in Nechemyah "Vayeilech Achareihem (behind the loaves) Hoshayah va'Chatzi Sarei Yehudah" we will have to explain - that the Pasuk is only describing how the loaves formed part of the ceremony, as well as the Sanhedrin (in fact, they went at the side but in front of the Sanhedrin, as we learned earlier), and it was the whole of Yisrael who went behind the Sanhedrin.

(b) The Kohanim carried the loaves.

(c) Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi argue over how the loaves went. One of them says that the Kohanim carried them one next to the other, the other - that they went one behind the other.

(d) According to the first opinion, the 'inner loaf' (the one that was eaten) refers to the one that was closest to the wall, according to the second opinion, it refers to the one that was behind, the one that was closest to the Sanhedrin.

(a) We initially assume the fact that the inner loaf is eaten, to be easily understandable according to the second opinion - because we think at first, that the preceding loaf consecrated the area in question, in which case the second loaf is now within the sanctified area.

(b) This reason is more problematic than we first thought however - because one loaf does not consecrate the area in question without the other.

(c) Nor will the problem be solved if we assume that any one of the requirements in our Mishnah will suffice - because the two loaves are considered one Mitzvah, and cannot therefore be divided under any circumstances.

(d) We finally attribute the fact that the inner loaf is eaten and the outer one, burned - to the fact that the Nevi'im Chagai, Malacho and Zecharyah were there, and they instituted via Ru'ach ha'Kodesh that the one must be eaten, whilst the other is burned (irrespective of whether the loaves went one beside the other or one behind and one, in front).