The Gemara Yoma Daf Yod, in Masechet Arachim, begins by discussing the differences between the Sanctuary in Shilo and the Temple in Jerusalem. The Mishnah states: "There is no difference between Shilo and Jerusalem, except that in Shilo, Kodashim Kalim and Ma'aser Sheni may be eaten within eyesight of Shilo, but in Jerusalem, only within the walls." This means that for offerings of lesser sanctity, the area of consumption around Shilo was broader, encompassing anywhere one could see the Sanctuary. In contrast, in Jerusalem, consumption was restricted to the area within the city walls. However, for Kodshei Kodashim, such as a sin-offering, both in Shilo and in the Temple in Jerusalem, the consumption was restricted to within the curtains of the Sanctuary.
A crucial distinction is then made regarding their sanctity: "The sanctity of Shilo allowed for a temporary permission to offer sacrifices on private altars after its destruction, until the Temple in Jerusalem was built. However, the sanctity of Jerusalem has no such permission after its destruction." This explains why today, after the destruction of the Second Temple, there is no permission to offer sacrifices on private altars. This concept is derived from a verse stating, "For you have not yet come to the resting place and the inheritance," where "resting place" refers to Shilo, and "inheritance" refers to Jerusalem. The verse separates them to indicate a period of permission for private altars between the destruction of Shilo and the building of the Temple in Jerusalem.
The Gemara then introduces a statement by Rabbi Yitzchak: "I heard that they are offering sacrifices in the temple of Chonyo in Egypt at this time." This refers to Beit Chonyo, a temple built in Egypt by Chonyo, the son of Shimon HaTzadik. According to Rashi, Chonyo built it for the sake of Heaven, though this is a subject of debate. The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yitzchak's statement relies on two premises: first, that Beit Chonyo was not a place of idol worship; and second, that the initial sanctity of Jerusalem was temporary and did not extend to future generations. This latter point is based on the comparison between "resting place" (Shilo) and "inheritance" (Jerusalem) in the aforementioned verse, implying that just as Shilo's sanctity was temporary, so too was Jerusalem's. Thus, if Jerusalem's sanctity was temporary, private altars would be permitted after its destruction, allowing sacrifices in Beit Chonyo.
However, when challenged, Rabbi Yitzchak retracted his statement. Abaye swore that Rabbi Yitzchak had indeed made the statement, asking why he retracted. The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yitzchak retracted due to a difficulty raised by Rav Mari. Rav Mari cited the Mishnah that states, "The sanctity of Shilo allowed for a temporary permission for private altars, but the sanctity of Jerusalem has no such permission." Furthermore, Rav Mari quoted another Mishnah: "Once they came to Jerusalem, private altars became forbidden and never again became permitted." This contradicts the idea that Jerusalem's sanctity was temporary. Thus, Rabbi Yitzchak, upon hearing Rav Mari's argument, which aligned with the established Mishnah, realized his initial premise was flawed and retracted his support for sacrifices in Beit Chonyo.
The Gemara then suggests that this entire discussion is a dispute between Tannaim. It presents a Braita where Rabbi Eliezer states that when the Second Temple was being built, they erected curtains for the Sanctuary and the courtyard. For the Sanctuary, the curtains were placed so builders worked from the outside, to avoid entering the holy space. For the courtyard, they worked from the inside. This implies a need for reconsecration. In contrast, Rabbi Yehoshua states: "I heard that sacrifices may be offered even without a Temple, and Kodshei Kodashim may be eaten even without curtains, and Kodashim Kalim and Ma'aser Sheni may be eaten even without a wall. Why? Because the initial sanctity consecrated it for its time and for all future generations." This clearly shows a disagreement on whether Jerusalem's sanctity is eternal.
However, Ravina questions this, suggesting that perhaps everyone, including Rabbi Eliezer, agrees that the initial sanctity was eternal. In this view, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua were simply testifying to what they heard. The curtains Rabbi Eliezer mentioned would then be for modesty, not for reconsecration. Tosafot raises a question regarding sacrifices in Beit Chonyo, given the rabbinic decree of ritual impurity for lands outside Israel. Tosafot suggests that perhaps this decree did not apply to formal offerings, especially since from a Torah perspective, such sacrifices would be permitted if Jerusalem's sanctity was indeed temporary.
Tosafot further addresses the retraction of Rabbi Yitzchak. It seems problematic that Rabbi Yitzchak would have initially made a statement contradicting a known Mishnah. Rabbi Chaim suggests that everyone agrees that after Jerusalem's destruction, private altars are forbidden. The dispute among Tannaim is only whether one can offer sacrifices on the Temple Mount itself, in the exact location of the altar, without a Temple structure. Rabbi Eliezer would hold that even there, it is forbidden, while Rabbi Yehoshua would permit it. This clarifies why Rabbi Yitzchak retracted: his original statement about Beit Chonyo (which was outside Jerusalem) would contradict the universally accepted principle that private altars are forbidden after Jerusalem's destruction.
The Gemara then seeks a definitive Tannaitic dispute. It brings a Braita where Rabbi Yishmael bar Rabbi Yose explains why certain cities were enumerated in Masechet Arachim regarding walled cities from the time of Joshua. He states that when the exiles returned from Babylon, they found these cities and reconsecrated them, implying that the original sanctity had ceased. This supports the view that initial sanctity was temporary. However, another statement attributed to Rabbi Yishmael bar Rabbi Yose says that these cities were simply found and listed, and any city with a tradition of having a wall from Joshua's time retains its sanctity, "because the initial sanctity consecrated it for its time and for all future generations." This presents a contradiction within Rabbi Yishmael bar Rabbi Yose's statements. The Gemara resolves this by suggesting either two Tannaim transmitted different traditions in his name, or that the second statement was actually by Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Yose, who interprets a verse to mean that a city retains its status as a walled city even if its wall is currently absent, supporting eternal sanctity.
The Gemara then shifts to a new topic, discussing the word "Vayehi" (and it was) in the Tanakh. Rabbi Levi, or some say Rabbi Yonatan, states a tradition from the Anshei Keneset HaGedolah (Men of the Great Assembly) that whenever "Vayehi" introduces a passage, it indicates sorrow or trouble. Numerous examples are provided: "Vayehi bimei Achashverosh" (Esther) introduces Haman; "Vayehi bimei shefot hashofetim" (Judges) introduces famine; "Vayehi ki hechel ha'adam larov" (Genesis) introduces human corruption; and so on, through various periods of distress in Jewish history.
The Gemara challenges this rule with examples where "Vayehi" introduces positive events, such as "Vayehi bayom hashmini" (Leviticus), referring to the joyous inauguration of the Tabernacle, or "Vayehi ka'asher ra'ah Yaakov et Rachel" (Genesis), referring to Jacob meeting Rachel. The Gemara resolves this by refining the rule: Rav Ashi states that while "Vayehi" alone can introduce either joy or sorrow, "Vayehi bimei" (and it was in the days of), the double phrase, always introduces sorrow. There are only five such instances in the Tanakh: "Vayehi bimei Achashverosh," "Vayehi bimei shefot hashofetim," "Vayehi bimei Amraphel," "Vayehi bimei Achaz," and "Vayehi bimei Yehoyakim." The Maharsha explains that the extra word "bimei" signals the deeper meaning of sorrow.
Another tradition from Rabbi Levi states: "Amotz and Amatzyah were brothers." This seemingly simple statement is explained by the Gemara through Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani, who quotes Rabbi Yonatan: "Any bride who is modest in her father-in-law's house merits that kings and prophets descend from her." The proof is from Tamar, whom Judah mistook for a prostitute because she covered her face. The Gemara clarifies that she was modest in her father-in-law's house, so he never recognized her. In her merit, kings (from David, a descendant of Judah) and prophets (from Yeshayahu ben Amotz) descended from her. Since Amotz and Amatzyah were brothers, and Amatzyah was a king from David's line, Amotz's son Yeshayahu was a prophet, thus fulfilling the prophecy of kings and prophets from Tamar's modesty.
A third tradition from Rabbi Levi states: "The space of the Ark was not included in the measurements." This refers to a miracle in the Temple. The dimensions of the Holy of Holies were twenty cubits by twenty cubits. The Ark was flanked by two cherubim, each with wings ten cubits long. If each cherub's wing was ten cubits, they would together span the entire twenty-cubit width. This leaves no room for the Ark itself. The Gemara concludes that the Ark must have stood miraculously, occupying no measurable space.
The Gemara then presents various opening verses (petichata) that different Rabbis used to introduce their discourses on the Book of Esther, each highlighting a different aspect of the Purim story.
Rabbi Yonatan opened his discourse with the verse: "I will set my throne in Elam and destroy from there king and princes." He interpreted "king" as Vashti, and "princes" as Haman and his ten sons, signifying the downfall of Babylon's power and its oppressors.
Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani used the verse: "Instead of the thornbush, a cypress will grow; instead of the nettle, a myrtle will grow." He interpreted "thornbush" as Haman, who made himself like an idol. "Cypress" refers to Mordechai, who is called "the head of all spices." "Nettle" refers to Vashti, daughter of Nevuchadnezzar, who burned the Temple's golden coverings. "Myrtle" refers to Esther, also known as Hadassah. The verse concludes, "And it will be for the Lord a name, an everlasting sign that will not be cut off," which Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani linked to the reading of the Megillah and the eternal days of Purim.
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi opened with: "Just as the Lord rejoiced over you to do you good, so will He rejoice over you to bring you ruin and destruction." The Gemara questions how God can rejoice in the downfall of the wicked, citing verses that state God does not rejoice in their destruction. Rabbi Elazar reconciles this by explaining that God Himself does not rejoice, but He causes others (the Jewish people) to rejoice. The term "Yashish" (He will cause to rejoice) implies this indirect joy, rather than "Yasos" (He will rejoice), which would imply direct joy.
Rabbi Abba bar Kahana used the verse: "To the person who is good in His sight, He gives wisdom, knowledge, and joy; but to the sinner, He gives the task of gathering and accumulating, only to give it to one who is good in God's sight." He identified the "good person" as Mordechai, who possessed great wisdom and brought joy to Israel. The "sinner" is Haman, who accumulated wealth and honor only for it to be transferred to Mordechai and Esther, as Esther placed Mordechai over Haman's house.
Rabbah bar Ufran (not Efron, as the Gemara notes, because "the name of the wicked shall rot") opened with: "I will set My throne in Elam, and I will destroy from there king and princes." He interpreted "king" as Vashti and "princes" as Haman and his ten sons, signifying their destruction in the Persian empire (Elam).
Rav Dimi bar Yitzchak used the verse: "For we are slaves, but in our servitude, our God has not abandoned us, and has extended kindness to us before the kings of Persia." This refers to the time of Haman, when the Jewish people were threatened with destruction, yet God showed them kindness through the Persian kings.
Finally, Rabbi Chanina bar Papa opened with: "You have let men ride over our heads; we went through fire and water, but You brought us out to abundance." "Fire" refers to the time of Nevuchadnezzar, when Chananya, Mishael, and Azarya were thrown into the fiery furnace. "Water" refers to the time of Pharaoh, when Jewish male infants were cast into the Nile. "Brought us out to abundance" refers to the salvation in the days of Haman, which occurred through the wine feasts, symbolizing abundance.
Rabbi Yochanan concluded with: "He has remembered His kindness and His faithfulness to the house of Israel; all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God." This refers to the time of Mordechai and Esther, when God's salvation was revealed to all nations through the widespread letters, demonstrating His kindness even to those who might not have deserved it (e.g., those who attended Achashverosh's feast) and His faithfulness to those who did. The phrase "house of Israel" is interpreted to refer to the women, as the salvation came through Esther.