Today's study begins on Shevuot, page 13, side one, continuing our discussion from the second line of the text. The Mishnah states that the sanctification of Jerusalem or the courtyard of the Temple, known as the Azara, required a comprehensive process involving the king, the Kohen Gadol, the Urim and Tumim, the thanksgiving offerings, and other specific protocols. The implication of the Mishnah is that if any of these components were missing, the sanctification would be invalid. All elements were necessary for the Kedushah to be established.
The Gemara introduces a dispute regarding the interpretation of the phrase "all of these." Rav Huna understands "all of these" literally, meaning every single detail is essential for the Kedushah. He maintains that the initial Kedushah, established when King Solomon built the First Temple, remained even after its destruction. Therefore, when Zerubbabel and the returnees from exile came to build the Second Temple, there was no actual need to re-sanctify the Azarot or Jerusalem. Their actions were merely a commemoration, not an official re-sanctification, because they lacked certain components, such as the Urim and Tumim, which Rav Huna deems indispensable. Since the original Kedushah persisted, the absence of these elements did not impede the existing sanctity.
In contrast, Rav Nachman argues that "even one of these" items is sufficient for sanctification. He holds that the Kedushah of the First Temple dissipated after its destruction, necessitating a genuine re-sanctification for the Second Temple period. According to Rav Nachman, Zerubbabel's re-sanctification was indeed effective, despite the absence of a king or Urim and Tumim, because he only required one of the specified components. Thus, the debate between Rav Huna and Rav Nachman hinges on a fundamental question: does the Kedushah of Jerusalem and the Azara endure after destruction, or does it vanish, requiring re-sanctification?
Rashi elaborates on the five things that were lacking in the Second Temple compared to the First Temple: the fire from heaven on the altar, the anointing oil, the Ark of the Covenant, the Urim and Tumim, and the Divine Presence. Rashi's commentary supports the idea that the original Kedushah of the area itself remained, meaning there was no need for Zerubbabel to re-consecrate the physical space of the Azara and Jerusalem. If the purpose was merely to extend the existing sanctity, the missing components would not be an issue. However, if it was a re-consecration, the absence of these elements, particularly the Urim and Tumim, would be problematic for Rav Huna.
The Gemara then challenges Rav Nachman's view with a Mishnah that states, "All that was not done with all of these." This implies that all procedures are necessary. Rav Nachman, however, simply suggests emending the Mishnah to read, "with one of these."
The Gemara continues with a teaching from Abba Shaul concerning two swampy areas on the Mount of Olives, referred to as Har HaZeitim. The lower area was sanctified with "all of these" from the time of the First Temple, meaning it was included in the original Kedushah of Jerusalem. The upper area, however, was not. It was sanctified later by the returnees from exile, who lacked a king and Urim and Tumim. The lower area possessed complete Kedushah, allowing people to eat Kodashim Kalim there, but not Ma'aser Sheni. The Am HaAretz, common people, were lenient with Kodashim Kalim, eating them within the walls of Jerusalem, but were strict with Ma'aser Sheni, eating it only in the Azara itself, based on the verse "before Hashem your God" and the belief that meticulous observance of tithes brings wealth. The Haverim, scholars, would eat both Kodashim Kalim and Ma'aser Sheni within the walls of Jerusalem. However, in the upper area, which lacked the original Kedushah, the Am HaAretz were lenient and would still eat Kodashim Kalim there, considering it within the general walled area, even without the full original Kedushah. Rashi clarifies that the Am HaAretz were very strict about Ma'aser Sheni, eating it only within the inner wall of Jerusalem, but were lenient with Kodashim Kalim, eating them even within the outer wall.
The Gemara then asks: why was the upper area not sanctified with the full Kedushah? The answer given is that "one may not add to a city or to the Azarot except with a king, a prophet, Urim and Tumim, a Sanhedrin of seventy-one, and two thanksgiving offerings." This explicitly states that all these components are necessary, which contradicts Rav Nachman's position that one is sufficient. The Gemara clarifies that the wall built in the upper area was not for Kedushah, but for defense, as that area exposed Jerusalem to attack. Thus, the wall served a security purpose, not a sanctification one, reinforcing the idea that the full procedure was necessary for Kedushah.
The Gemara concludes that this entire discussion is a dispute among the Tannaim. The question is whether the original Kedushah remains or dissipates. A Baraita is brought, stating that when the returnees from exile came to build the Temple, they first erected temporary partitions in the areas of the Hekhal and the Azarot before constructing the permanent walls. In the Hekhal, the partitions were set inward, and the wall was built behind them. In the Azarot, the partitions were set inward, and the wall was built in front of them. Rashi explains that this was done to prevent builders from looking directly into the Hekhal during construction. The Gemara suggests that these partitions were erected to immediately enable the offering of sacrifices, implying that the first Kedushah had departed, and a new one needed to be established through these partitions.
Rabbi Eliezer states that he heard that when they built the Hekhal, they put up partitions, and similarly for the Azarot, but in the Hekhal they built from the outside, and in the Azarot from the inside. Rabbi Yehoshua, however, states that he heard that one may offer sacrifices even without a Temple building or holy vessels, and Kodashim Kalim and Ma'aser Sheni may be eaten in Jerusalem even without a wall. This is because "the first Kedushah is Kedushah for its time and Kedushah for future times." Rabbi Yehoshua implies that the original Kedushah remained, making partitions unnecessary. This suggests a dispute: Rabbi Eliezer implies the Kedushah departed, necessitating partitions, while Rabbi Yehoshua holds it remained. This supports Rav Nachman's view that the Kedushah departed and required re-sanctification, even if with fewer components.
However, the Gemara questions this proof, suggesting that the partitions might have been for reasons of modesty (tzeni'ut), not Kedushah. Thus, the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua might not be about Kedushah at all. The Gemara then brings another Baraita regarding the laws of walled cities in Eretz Yisrael from the time of Joshua bin Nun. Such cities are subject to specific laws, including the right of a seller to repurchase a house within a year. Rabbi Yishmael, in the name of Rabbi Yose, states that when the returnees from exile came back, they listed eight cities that were walled from the time of Joshua. They "sanctified them," implying that the original Kedushah had left, and they needed to re-establish it. This supports the view that Kedushah is not eternal.
The Gemara challenges this, noting that there were many more than eight walled cities from Joshua's time. It clarifies that the returnees from exile only listed those cities whose walls were still intact. The Baraita then presents a contradiction: one version states they "sanctified them," while another, also in the name of Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Yose, says they merely "counted them," because the Kedushah remained. This second version is supported by a verse that uses "lo choma" (without a wall) but is read as "lo choma" (not a wall), implying that even if a wall is currently absent, the city retains its sanctity if it once had a wall from Joshua's time. This demonstrates that the Kedushah remains, and the laws of walled cities apply without re-sanctification. Therefore, the Gemara concludes that there is indeed a dispute among the Tannaim regarding whether the first Kedushah remains or dissipates.
This Tannaitic dispute clarifies the positions of Rav Huna and Rav Nachman. According to Rav Huna, who believes the Kedushah remained, Zerubbabel's actions were merely a commemoration, as the full sanctification procedure was not possible due to missing components. According to Rav Nachman, who believes the Kedushah departed, Zerubbabel's actions were a genuine re-sanctification, as he holds that only one of the required components was sufficient.
The Mishnah then discusses a case where a person becomes ritually impure (tamay) within the Azara and remains there. The question is how we know such a person is liable, as the Torah typically discusses entering while already impure. The Gemara cites two verses: "he defiled the Mishkan" and "he defiled the Mikdash." These verses are interpreted to teach that liability applies both when one enters impure from the outside and when one becomes impure while already inside. However, the Gemara initially questions this, suggesting these verses are needed to teach that the law applies to both the Mishkan and the Mikdash, as one cannot be derived from the other due to their differing statuses regarding private offerings after destruction. The Mishkan allowed private offerings even after its destruction, while the Mikdash, once built, permanently forbade them, indicating a "Kedushah Olam" (eternal Kedushah) for its site.
Rabbi Elazar resolves this by stating that "Mishkan" and "Mikdash" are synonymous terms. The Torah uses both to teach not only that the law applies to both, but also that it applies whether one becomes impure inside or outside. The use of different, though synonymous, terms indicates these two distinct legal extensions. The Gemara then proves their synonymity: the Mikdash is called Mishkan, as in "I will place My Mishkan among you," referring to the Divine Presence in the Temple. The Mishkan is called Mikdash, as in "you shall make Me a Mikdash," referring to the Tabernacle.
Finally, the Mishnah states that one who becomes impure in the Azara is liable if he either bowed or remained for the duration of a bow. The Gemara clarifies this: if one bowed facing west, towards the Kodesh, even a quick bow (bending knees with face to the ground) makes him liable. However, if one bowed facing east, with his back to the Hekhal, such a quick bow is considered worthless. In that case, liability only arises if he remained for the duration of a full prostration (Pishut Yadayim VeRaglayim), which involves lying flat on the ground. The Gemara explains that the Mishnah's phrase "remained for the duration of a bow" refers to this longer, full prostration, which is required when bowing in the "wrong" direction. The duration of this full prostration is debated by Rabbi Yitzchak bar Nachmani and his colleague, with one saying it's the time it takes to read an entire verse, and the other saying it's the time to read only a portion of it. The Gemara distinguishes three types of bowing: "kida" (bending knees with face to the ground), "apaim" (bending from the waist with face to the ground), and "hishtachava'ah" (full prostration). The Mishnah's ruling depends on the direction and type of bow, with a minimal bow towards the west incurring liability, while a minimal bow towards the east does not, requiring instead the full duration of a prostration to incur liability.