שבועות 16 — parallel

16:1

by the ruling of the prophet the one was eaten, and by the ruling of the prophet the other was burnt. ANY [ADDITION] THAT WAS NOT MADE WITH ALL THESE, ETC. It was taught: R. Huna said: WITH ALL THESE we learnt in our Mishnah; R. Nahman said: WITH ANY ONE OF ALL THESE we learnt in our Mishnah. R. Huna said: WITH ALL THESE we learnt in our Mishnah, because he holds the first consecration consecrated it for the time being, and consecrated if for the future; and Ezra [in re-consecrating it] merely did it as a symbol. R. Nahman said: WITH ANY ONE OF ALL THESE we learnt in our Mishnah, because he holds the first consecration consecrated it for the time being, and did not consecrate it for the future; and Ezra really re-consecrated it, although there were no Urim and Tummim. Raba asked R. Nahman: We learnt: ANY ADDITION THAT WAS NOT MADE WITH ALL THESE!? — [Emend it and] learn: ‘With any one of all these.’ Come and hear: Abba Saul said: There were two meadows on the Mount of Olives, the lower and the upper; the lower was consecrated with all these; the upper was not consecrated with all these, but by the returned exiles, without King and without Urim and Tummim; the lower one which was properly consecrated; the illiterate entered there, and ate there sacrifices of a minor grade of holiness, but not the second tithe. And the learned ate there sacrifices of a minor grade of holiness and also the second tithe. The upper one which was not properly consecrated; the illiterate entered there, and ate there sacrifices of a minor grade of holiness, but not the second tithe. And the learned did not eat there either sacrifices of a minor grade of holiness or the second tithe. And why did they not consecrate it? Because additions are not made to the city and to the Temple courts except by King, Prophet, Urim and Tummim, Sanhedrin of seventy-one, and two [loaves] of thanksgiving, and song. And why did they consecrate it? Why did they consecrate it? You have just said they did not consecrate it! — But [read] ‘why did they bring it within [the city boundaries]?’ Because it was a vulnerable spot of Jerusalem, and it would have been easy to conquer it [the city] from there. [This is, however, in conflict with R. Nahman's view! — He may answer that it is a subject upon which] Tannaim disagree [and he will agree with one of them], for it has been taught: R. Eliezer said: I heard [from my teachers] that when they were building the Temple [in Ezra's time], they made curtains for the Temple and curtains for the courts, but for the Temple they built [the wall] outside [the curtains], and for the courts they built [the walls] within [the curtains]. R. Joshua said: I heard that sacrifices were offered although there was no Temple, and sacrifices of the highest grade of holiness were eaten although there were no curtains, and sacrifices of a minor grade and the second tithe, although there was no wall, because the first consecration consecrated it for the time being, and consecrated it for the future. This implies [does it not?] that R. Eliezer holds, it did not consecrate it for the future. Said Rabina to R. Ashi; How [do you deduce this]? Perhaps all agree that the first consecration consecrated it for the time being, and consecrated it for the future, but one Master states [merely] what he heard [from his teachers], and the other Master states [merely] what he heard [from his teachers]. And if you will say, [if so,] why, according to R. Eliezer, are curtains necessary? [We may reply,] for privacy only! Well then, there the Tannaim [disagree], for it has been taught: ‘R. Ishmael son of R. Jose said: Why did the Sages enumerate these? Because when the exiles returned, they came upon these, and consecrated them; but [the sanctity of] the earlier [cities] was abolished when [the sanctity of] the land was abolished.’ Hence, he holds that the first consecration consecrated it for the time being, but did not consecrate it for the future. But we may point out an incongruity: ‘R. Ishmael son of R. Jose said: Were there, then, only these? Surely it is already written: [And we took all his cities ... sixty cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan. All these were fortified cities, with high walls. Then why did the Sages enumerate these? Because when the exiles returned, they came upon these, and consecrated them.’ — They consecrated them now! Surely we state further on that it was not necessary to consecrate them! But read, ‘they came upon these, and enumerated them. And not these only [are walled cities], but any one about which you may have a tradition from your fathers that it was surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua, the son of Nun, then all these precepts apply to it; because the first consecration consecrated it for the time being, and consecrated it for the future.’ There is thus a discrepancy between [the statement of] R. Ishmael son of R. Jose [in the Baraitha] and [that of] R. Ishmael son of R. Jose [in the Tosefta]! — If you will, you may say that [they reflect the opinions of] two tannaim [who] disagree about [the view of] R. Ishmael son of R. Jose; and if you will, you may say that one of the statements was spoken by R. Eleazar b. Jose, for it has been taught: R. Eleazar b. Jose said: [Scripture says: The city] that has a wall; although it has not [a wall] now, as long as it had one before [it is reckoned a walled city]. 35

—

16:2

IF HE BECAME UNCLEAN IN THE TEMPLE COURT [AND WAS AWARE OF IT], THEN THE UNCLEANNESS BECAME HIDDEN FROM HIM, etc. How do we know uncleanness in the Temple court [is punishable]? — R. Eleazar [b. Pedath] said: One verse states: The tabernacle of the Lord he hath defiled; and another verse states: For the sanctuary of the Lord he hath defiled. If it is not applicable to [the case of] uncleanness occurring outside, apply it to [the case of] uncleanness occurring inside. But are the verses superfluous? Surely they are necessary, for it has been taught: R. Eleazar [b. Shammua’] said: If tabernacle is mentioned, why is sanctuary mentioned; and if sanctuary is mentioned, why is tabernacle mentioned? If tabernacle had been mentioned, and sanctuary had not been mentioned, I might have thought that for [entering] the tabernacle he should be liable, because it was anointed with the anointing oil; but for [entering] the sanctuary [i.e., Temple] he should not be liable; and if sanctuary had been mentioned, and tabernacle had not been mentioned, I might have thought that for [entering] the sanctuary he should be liable, because its holiness is an everlasting holiness; but for [entering] the tabernacle he should not be liable; therefore tabernacle is mentioned, and sanctuary is mentioned. — R. Eleazar [b. Shammua’] argued thus; Since tabernacle is called sanctuary, and sanctuary is called tabernacle, let Scripture write either in both verses sanctuary, or in both verses tabernacle; why [does Scripture write] tabernacle and sanctuary? Hence, we deduce both. Granted that sanctuary is called tabernacle, for it is written: And I will set My tabernacle among you; but whence do we know that tabernacle is called sanctuary? Shall we say, because it is written: And the Kohathites, the bearers of the sanctuary set forward? This refers to the Ark, — Well then, from this verse: And let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them; and it is written: According to all that I show thee the pattern of the tabernacle. AND HE PROSTRATED HIMSELF, OR TARRIED THE PERIOD OF PROSTRATION, Raba said: They did not teach this except when he prostrated himself facing inwards; but if he prostrated himself facing outwards, then, only if he tarried is he liable, but if he did not tarry, he is not liable. Some append this [comment of Raba] to the latter clause; OR TARRIED THE PERIOD OF PROSTRATION: This implies that prostration itself requires tarrying. Raba said: They did not teach this except when he prostrated himself facing outwards; but, if facing inwards, even if he did not tarry [he is liable;] and thus [the Mishnah] means: If he prostrated himself facing inwards [without tarrying], or if he tarried the period of prostration in his prostration facing outwards, he is liable. What is considered prostration in which there is tarrying, and what is considered prostration in which there is no tarrying? — Where there is no tarrying, that is mere kneeling; where there is tarrying, that is the spreading out of hands and feet. And what is the duration of tarrying? In this there is disagreement between R. Isaac b. Nahmani and one of his associates, namely, R. Simeon b. Pazzi (and some say, R. Simeon b. Pazzi and one of his associates, namely, R. Isaac b. Nahmani, and some say, R. Simeon b. Nahmani); one says: As the time taken to recite this verse: And all the children of Israel looked on, when the fire came down, and the glory of the Lord was upon the house; and they bowed themselves with their faces to the ground upon the pavement, and prostrated themselves, and gave thanks unto the Lord: ‘for He is good, for His mercy endureth for ever’; and the other says: As [the time taken to recite] from and they bowed till the end. Our Sages taught: Kiddah means [falling] on the face; and so Scripture says: Then Bath-sheba bowed with her face to the earth. Kneeling means upon the knees; and so Scripture says: from kneeling at his knees. Prostration means spreading out of hands and feet; and so Scripture says: Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down to thee to the earth? Raba queried: Is tarrying necessary for stripes, or is tarrying not necessary for stripes? For [the bringing of] a sacrifice there is a tradition that tarrying is necessary, but for stripes there is no tradition that tarrying is necessary? 25

—