ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Shevuos 16
SHEVUOS 16-18 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
(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
(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
(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.
(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.
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.
(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
(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
(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
(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.
(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
1. ... Mishkan, we would not have known Mikdash - because whereas the
Mishkan was anointed, the Mikdash was not.
(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.
2. ... Mikdash, we would not have known Mishkan - because unlike Mikdash,
its Kedushah was only temporary (see Tosfos DH 'Kedushaso Kedushas Olam').
(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.
(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).
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'.
(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
(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
(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'.