Previous daf

1)

(a) According to Rav Huna, when our Mishnah says 'Kol she'Lo Na'asis be'Chol Eilu, ha'Nichnas le'Sham Ein Chayav Alehah', he means that if even one item is omitted from the consecration ceremony, the Azarah remains unsanctified. Rav Nachman says - that it only remains unsanctified if not even one of them was performed.

(b) The two items missing from the consecration of second Beis Hamikdash were - a king and the Urim ve'Tumim.

(c) Based on this fact, the basis of their Machlokes is - whether the Kedushah of the first Beis-Hamikdash was eternal or not. According to Rav Huna, it was, so it did not matter that some of the items were missing, since Nechemyah's consecration was only symbolical anyway.

(d) According to Rav Nachman, on the other hand, the Kedushah of the first Beis-Hamikdash became Bateil with its destruction, in which case, Nechemyah's consecration had to be legal. Consequently, we have to say that any one of the items mentioned in the Mishnah is sufficient to consecrate the Azarah.

(a) Aba Shaul in a Beraisa discusses two marshes that were situated at the head and the foot of Har ha'Mishchah, otherwise known as - 'Har ha'Zeisim'.

(b) Both had a wall around them. The Amei-ha'Aretz would ...

1. ... eat Kodshim Kalim even within the outer wall at the head of the mountain - because they figured that, since there were two walls, presumably the outer one sanctified the area within it no less than the inner one, to give it the same degree of sanctity.
2. ... only eat Ma'aser Sheini within the inner wall, because they wanted to fulfill the Pasuk ''ve'Achalta Lifnei Hashem Elokecha Ma'aser Degancha ... " (to eat Ma'aser Sheini before Hashem) as literally as possible.

(c) The Chaverim (Talmidei-Chachamim) - used to eat both the Ma'aser Sheini and Kodshim Kalim within the inner wall, because the outer wall had been consecrated by Nechemyah without a king and without the Urim ve'Tumim.

(d) This Beraisa poses a Kashya on Rav Nachman, but not on Rav Huna (who does not require all the items listed in our Mishnah in order to consecrate the second Beis-Hamikdash) - since his ruling refers to Yerushalayim itself, whereas the outer wall surrounded the Tosefes of the city (which had not been sanctified in the time of the first Beis-Hamikdash) and would have therefore required a legal consecration even according to him.

(a) Despite the fact that Har ha'Zeisim was not sanctified, they built a wall around it - because of its strategic position (seeing as whoever conquered it would have had easy access to the rest of the city).

(b) We have proved from here - that all the items listed in our Mishnah with regard to the consecration were necessary (in which case the Tana must also hold 'Kedushah Rishonah Kidshah le'Sha'atah ve'Kidshah le'Asid Lavo', like Rav Huna explained earlier).

(c) We reconcile Rav Nachman with this Beraisa - by citing a Machlokes Tana'im in this regard.

(d) Rebbi Eliezer heard that, when they first returned from Bavel, they put up curtains around both the area of the Heichal and that of the Azarah. The difference between the way that they put up the curtains in the two respective places was - the fact that, whereas they placed the curtains on the inside of the former and built from the outside (so as to avoid benefiting from viewing the airspace of the Heichal), they placed them on the outside of the latter and worked from the inside.

(a) Rebbi Yehoshua permits bringing sacrifices nowadays, even though there is no Beis Hamikdash, eating Kodshei Kodshim even though there are no curtains around the area of the Heichal - and eating Kodshim Kalim and Ma'aser Sheini even though there is no wall around Yerushalayim ...

(b) ... because he holds 'Kedushah Rishonah Kidshah le'Sha'atah ve'Kidshah le'Asid Lavo.

(c) On the assumption that Rebbi Yehoshua comes to argue with Rebbi Eliezer, we initially presume that Rebbi Eliezer holds 'Kedushah Rishonah ... ve'Lo Kidshah le'Asid Lavo'.

(d) Ravina suggests that Rebbi Eliezer also agrees that the initial Kedushah remained even after the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash ...

1. ... and that in fact, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehooshua are not really arguing at all, only each Tana stated what he heard.
2. ... and the reason that they put up curtains (in spite of the fact that the areas concerned were sanctified anyway), according to Rebbi Eliezer was - for reasons of Tzeniyus (modesty).

(a) Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi explains in a Beraisa, that the Mishnah in Erchin lists (in connection with the Din of Batei Arei Chomah) specifically nine towns out of the numerous towns that had a wall around them in the days of Yehoshua bin Nun, because those are the ones that they found and consecrated (all the others lost their Kedushah with the destruction of the first Beis-Hamikdash.

(b) In another Beraisa, he says - that they only mentioned these nine because they were the ones that they found when they returned from Bavel, but that in fact, all the towns that were traditionally walled in the time of Yehoshua bin Nun were sanctified (and these included the sixty towns of the territory of Argov that had previously belonged to Og Melech ha'Bashan).

(c) The second Tana's Lashon 'Matz'u Eilu ve'Kidshum' is wrong - because he specifically goes on to say that they do not require consecration.

(d) So we amend it to read 'Matz'u Eilu u'Man'um' (they found these and listed them').

(a) Initially, we reconcile these two Beraisos - by turning it into a Machlokes Tana'im regarding the opinion of Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi.

(b) Alternatively, we amend the name of the author of the second Beraisa to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yossi, who (in another Beraisa), Darshened the Pasuk in Behar (in connection with Batei Arei Chomah) "Asher Lo Chomah" (which is written with a 'Vav' but read with an 'Alef') to mean - that a city that had a wall around it in the time of Yehoshua bin Nun is considered a walled city, even though it no longer has one nowadays.

(c) Besides Batei Arei Chomah, the Tana is referring to - the obligation to send Metzora'im out of the town and the prohibition of transforming the open areas surrounding towns belonging to the Levi'im, into fields.

(d) We have now answered the Kashya on Rav Nachman (who holds 'Kedushah Rishonah Kidshah le'Sha'atah ve'Lo Kidshah le'Asid Lavo') - by establishing him like Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi in the first Beraisa.

7)

(a) Even though the Torah has already written "es Mishkan Hashem Timei", Rebbi Elazar (ben P'das) explains the need to then write "Ki es Mishkan Hashem Timei" to teach us - that one is Chayav for Tum'as Mikdash even if he became Tamei whilst standing in the Azarah (as we learned in our Mishnah).

(b) We might have thought otherwise - because he is not subject to the La'av of "ve'Lo Yetam'u es Machaneihem" (Parshas Naso).

(c) We query this however, from a Beraisa, where Rebbi Elazar (ben Shamua) explains the need for the two Pesukim to teach us the Din of Tum'ah with regard to both Mikdash and Mishkan. Had the Torah written the Chiyuv only by ...

1. ... Mishkan, we would not have known Mikdash - because whereas the Mishkan was anointed, the Mikdash was not.
2. ... Mikdash, we would not have known Mishkan - because unlike Mikdash, its Kedushah was only temporary (see Tosfos DH 'Kedushaso Kedushas Olam').

(d) To answer the Kashya, we cite the principle that, based on Pesukim, the terms 'Mikdash' and 'Mishkan' are interchangeable. Consequently, we would have known them both, had the Torah written either term twice. Now that it changes from "Mishkan" to "Mikdash", both Rebbi Elazar's initial Kashya and his answer can now be understood, since the repetition plus the change lends itself to two D'rashos.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Ve'nasati Mishkani be'Sochechem" - that the Torah refers to the Beis Hamikdash as 'Mishkan' (since the Mishkan was already standing at the time.
2. ... "Ve'asu Li Mikdash ... ke'Chol Asher Ani Mar'eh Oscha es Tavnis ha'Mishkan" - that it also refers to the Mishkan as 'Mikdash'.

(b) Why could we not have learned this from the Pasuk "Ve'nas'u ha'Kehasim Nos'ei ha'Mikdash" - because that Pasuk is referring to the Aron ha'Kodesh and the other Holy Vessels (and not to the actual Mishkan).

(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Hishtachaveh O she'Shahah K'dei Hishtachavayah ... Chayav', (insinuating that Hishtachavayah does not require a Shiur). Rava qualifies the word 'Hishtachaveh' - by confining it to where one faces westwards (towards the Kodesh Kodshim). Otherwise, he says, even prostrating oneself will require a Shiur too.

(b) Others apply Rava's statement to the Seifa 'O she'Shahah K'dei Hishtachavayah ... Chayav', from which we can extrapolate - that Hishtachavayah has a Shiur.

(c) Rava now qualifies the Mishnah - by confining that Shiur to where he prostrates himself towards the east (but if he prostrates himself towards the west, as we explained, he is Chayav even without a Shiur).

(d) The kind of Hishtachavayah which has no time limitation is - kneeling.

(a) Rebbi Shimon ben Pazi and Rebbi Yitzchak bar Nachmeini argue over the Shiur of Hishtachavayah. One says that it constitutes the time it takes to read the Pasuk in Divrei Hayamim "ve'Chol B'nei Yisrael ... va'Yichre'u Apayim Artzah Va'yishtachavu la'Melech ... Ki Le'olam Chasdo". The other one gives the Shiur as - from "va'Yichre'u Apayim Artzah until the end of the Pasuk.

(b) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Va'tikod Bas-Sheva Apayim Eretz" - that Kidah means bowing until one's face touches the ground.
2. ... "Vayehi ke'Chalos Shlomoh ... Kam ... mi'Kero'a al Birkav" - that 'Keri'ah' means kneeling.
3. ... (in connection with Yosef) "Havo Navo Ani ve'Imcha ve'Achecha Lehishtachavos Lecha Artzah" - that 'Hishyachavayah' means total prostration.

(a) Rava asked whether Malkos requires Shehiyah. The case is - where someone became Tamei in the Azarah, and remained less than 'K'dei Shehiyah' after being warned to leave by two witnesses.

(b) The two sides of Rava's She'eilah are - whether the Shiur Shehiyah was given to Moshe on Sinai be'Shogeg, with regard to a Korban Oleh ve'Yored exclusively, or whether it was given with regard to Tum'ah in the Azarah, Shogeg (to exempt from Korban) and Meizid to exempt from Malkos) alike.

(c) The outcome of the She'eilah is 'Teiku'.