The discussion begins with a re-examination of an assertion made by Ulla, who, quoting Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, stated that the Ark was buried in its place within the Holy of Holies. His proof rested on a verse in Melachim Aleph (First Kings) that reads, "and they were there until this very day," implying permanence.
Rabbah challenged this interpretation, asking how the phrase "until this very day" necessarily implies "forever." He presented a counter-example from the conquest of the Land of Israel, where it is written that the tribe of Binyamin could not expel the Yevusi inhabitants of Jerusalem, and "the Yevusi remained with the sons of Binyamin in Jerusalem until this very day." If "until this very day" meant forever, it would contradict other verses indicating that Jerusalem and the Land of Israel were desolate for a period, devoid of both humans and animals.
To support this, a Baraita by Rabbi Yehuda is cited, stating that there was a fifty-two-year period of desolation between the destruction of the First Temple and the decree of Koresh (Cyrus) allowing the rebuilding of the Second Temple. During this time, "no man traversed Judah," and even "the sound of cattle was not heard," with "birds of the heavens and animals" having "wandered and gone." The numerical value (gematria) of the word for "animal" (behema) in this verse is fifty-two, reinforcing the duration of desolation.
Another Baraita, by Rabbi Yosi, adds that for seven years during the exile of the First Temple, the land was like "sulfur and salt, a burning wasteland," as predicted in a verse. Rabbi Yochanan explains that Rabbi Yosi derived this seven-year period through a gezeira shava (verbal analogy) between two occurrences of the word "covenant" (brit). One verse refers to the ministers of Bavel (Babylon) fulfilling a covenant for "one week" (shavua echad), meaning seven years, and the other refers to the people abandoning the covenant of God, leading to the land becoming like "sulfur and salt." This further demonstrates that the phrase "until this very day" cannot always mean forever.
In response, the Gemara distinguishes between the two cases based on the presence of the word "there" (sham). In the verse about the Ark, it says "they were there (sham) until this very day," implying a specific, literal spot. However, regarding the tribe of Binyamin and the Yevusi, the verse only says "until this very day" without "there," indicating it should not be taken literally as an eternal presence.
The calculation of the fifty-two years of desolation is then clarified. This period runs from the destruction of Jerusalem during the exile of Tzidkiyahu until Koresh's decree. The total exile was seventy years. Eighteen years passed from the capture of Yehoyakim until Jerusalem's destruction under Tzidkiyahu. Adding these eighteen years to the fifty-two years of desolation brings the total to seventy years of exile.
The Gemara then challenges the rule that "there" (sham) implies "forever" with another verse: "From the sons of Shimon, five hundred men went to Har Seir... and they sat there (sham) until this very day." Yet, it is known that Sancheriv (Sennacherib), King of Assyria, later "confused all the lands," relocating populations and abolishing national boundaries, including the sons of Shimon in Har Seir. This contradicts the idea of their permanent presence. The Gemara concludes this point with a refutation (tiyuvta), indicating that Ulla's interpretation of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai's proof is problematic, implying the Ark was indeed sent into exile.
A third opinion regarding the Ark's fate is presented in a Baraita: the Ark "was hidden in the Chamber of the Wood Shed" (Lishkat Dir Ha'etzim) within the Temple. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak supports this with a Mishnah describing an incident in this chamber. A priest (Kohen) who was "acting light-headed" noticed an uneven floor tile. Before he could fully reveal his discovery to a friend, his soul departed, confirming that the Ark was hidden there. This priest was "playing around with his axe," indicating a lack of proper reverence.
A different version of this incident, from the school of Rabbi Ishmael, states that two blemished priests (Kohanim ba'alei mumim) were checking wood for worms when one's axe fell and landed on that spot. Fire then consumed the axe, or perhaps the priest who reached for it, serving as a warning.
Rabbi Yehuda highlights a contradiction between two verses concerning the Ark's poles (badim). One verse says, "the heads of the poles were seen," while another says, "they were not seen outside." The Gemara reconciles this by explaining that the poles would "push and protrude into the curtain" (Paroches) of the Holy of Holies, appearing like "the two breasts of a woman" under a garment, visible as a protrusion but not directly seen. This is likened to a verse from Shir Hashirim (Song of Songs), "A bundle of myrrh is my beloved to me, he rests between my breasts," where "breasts" (shadai) is interpreted as the protrusions of the poles, signifying God's presence.
Rav Katina relates that when the Jewish people ascended to Jerusalem for the festivals (Shalosh Regalim), the curtain of the Holy of Holies would be rolled back. They would be shown the cherubim (Keruvim) on top of the Ark, which were "embracing each other." The priests would declare, "Behold your endearment before the Omnipresent, like the endearment of a male and a female." This vision served as a barometer of the emotional connection between God and the Jewish people.
Rav Chisda challenges this practice, citing a prohibition for the Levites (Levi'im) against looking at the holy vessels, particularly the Ark, even when the priests were covering them for transport in the desert. The verse states, "they shall not come to see as it is swallowed up by the holy," meaning they were forbidden even to watch the covering process. How then could the entire nation gaze upon the Ark during the festivals?
Rav Nachman resolves this by distinguishing between the Tabernacle (Mishkan) in the desert and the Temple (Beit HaMikdash). He uses the analogy of a bride: "As long as she is in her father's house, she is modest before her husband." But "once she comes to her father-in-law's house," she is no longer as reserved. Similarly, in the desert, the relationship with God was like an engagement, requiring modesty. By the time of the First Temple, it was like a marriage, allowing for greater openness.
Rav Chana bar Rav Katina then asks a question from the incident of the priest in the Chamber of the Wood Shed, who died for attempting to uncover the Ark in the Second Temple. This suggests that even in the Temple era, looking at the Ark was forbidden. The Gemara responds, "You speak of a divorce?" referring to the destruction of the First Temple. The Second Temple period was like a remarriage after a divorce, reverting to the initial shyness and modesty of the Tabernacle era. Thus, during the First Temple, gazing was permitted, but in the Tabernacle and Second Temple, it was forbidden.
The Gemara then clarifies which Temple era is being discussed regarding the cherubim. If it was the First Temple, was there a curtain (Paroches)? Yes, there was a curtain at the door between the Holy and the Holy of Holies, in addition to the wall. If it was the Second Temple, were there cherubim? No, the Ark and its cherubim were hidden. Rav Acha bar Yaakov suggests that in the Second Temple, they showed "cherubim of images," meaning painted or engraved images on the walls of the Holy of Holies, which miraculously embraced each other. This is supported by a verse describing the walls of the First Temple as being covered with "images... cherubim, palm trees, and blossoming flowers," overlaid with gold.
Reish Lakish recounts that when the gentiles entered the Temple to destroy it, they saw the cherubim embracing. They took these images to the marketplace and exclaimed, "These Jews, whose blessing is a blessing and whose curse is a curse, would they engage in such things?" They immediately began to belittle the Jewish people, as it is written, "All her respected ones belittled her, for they saw her nakedness." This implies that the gentiles viewed the intimate embrace of the cherubim as inappropriate for a holy place, leading to their contempt. The Ri Migash questions why the cherubim would be embracing at a time of destruction, when the relationship with God was strained. Some explain it as a negative miracle (nes lera'ah) to further humiliate Israel, while others suggest it symbolized atonement or God's enduring love even in exile, likened to a husband showing affection to his wife before a long journey.
The Maharal explains that the cherubim, symbolizing God's love, were placed on the Ark, which contained the Tablets and the Torah. This signifies that the relationship between God and Israel is solely dependent on the Torah. As long as the Jewish people observe the Torah, their connection to God remains strong. This underscores that even on Tisha B'Av, a day of mourning for the Temple's destruction, Torah study (of permissible sections) is crucial for maintaining this connection.
The Gemara then discusses the "Foundation Stone" (Even Hasheisiyah), a rock in the place of the Ark in the Second Temple. A statement from the Tannaim asserts that "from it the world was founded." This aligns with the opinion that the world was created from Zion (Jerusalem). Rabbi Eliezer states that "the world was created from its center," with God adding "clumps of dirt" outwards. Rabbi Yehoshua argues that "the world was created from the sides," based on a verse mentioning four types of rain, implying creation from the corners inwards.
Rabbi Yitzchak offers a third view: "God threw a stone into the sea, and from it the world was founded," citing a verse that speaks of foundations "drowned" in water. The Sages (Chachamim) maintain that "from Zion it was created," aligning with Rabbi Eliezer's view that Zion is the world's center. This is supported by a verse from Asaf's psalm, "From Zion, the perfection of beauty, God appeared," indicating Zion as the starting point of the world's beauty.
Rabbi Eliezer HaGadol interprets a verse from Bereishit (Genesis) to mean that "the offspring of the heavens were created from the heavens," and "the offspring of the earth were created from the earth," suggesting distinct origins for celestial and terrestrial elements. However, the Sages contend that "both these and those were created from Zion," encompassing even the sun and celestial bodies, as indicated by the verse "from the rising of the sun to its setting."
Finally, a Tosafot is cited regarding the permissibility of drawing images. The Tosafot states that while drawing animals and birds in prayer books is not ideal as it can distract from prayer, it does not violate the prohibition against making graven images, as these are merely colored drawings without tangible form or protrusion. The prohibition applies only to complete, engraved faces. The Tosafot further discusses the permissibility of painting such images for Jews. Chacham Ovadia rules that images of lions and eagles, which are associated with the Divine Chariot (Ma'aseh Merkavah), should not even be embroidered on holy items like the Ark curtain or tallit bags.