שבועות 16:1 — Soncino English Talmud

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^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ

^ᵃnote:There is no discoverable reason why one loaf suffices and the other burnt; but this was the ruling of the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi who were present at Ezra's and Nehemiah's re-consecration of Jerusalem.
^ᵇnote:Of the Temple and of Jerusalem in the time of Solomon.
^ᶜnote:Because it was still holy, and did not need re-consecration, and could not, in any, case, be re-consecrated, because King and Urim and Tummim were lacking (v. Yoma 21 b); for R. Huna holds that we require ‘all these’ (enumerated in the Mishnah) for re-consecration, and Ezra neither re-consecrated the city nor made any addition to it which would require consecration.
^ᵈnote:With Sanhedrin, two loaves of thanksgiving, and song; for, according in R. Nahman, even one of the requisites (mentioned in the Mishnah) suffices for re-consecration.
^ᵉnote:[ihgmc Schlatter, Tage Trajans, 20, renders it ‘parts’, ‘districts’; Krauss, as ‘fissures’ produced by an earthquake, the Eroge mentioned in Josephus, Ant. IX, 10, 4, and which he identifies with Bethsaida (Bethesda), v. REJ, LXXIII, 59ff.]
^ᶠnote:On the slopes of the mountain, one near the base and the other near the summit.
^ᵍnote:During the time if the First Temple it was incorporated within the city boundary, and joined to the city by a wall.
^ʰnote:From Babylon, who included it in the city, and built another wall around it.
^ⁱnote:Amme ha-arez (v. Glos.). I.e., not strictly observant of the laws regarding levitical uncleanness.
^ʲnote:Such as thanks offerings or peace offerings which were permitted to be eaten within the city by all Israelites; v. Zeb. V, 6-8.
^ᵏnote:Eaten by the owner in Jerusalem: Deut. XIV, 22-26. The second tithe could also have been eaten in the lower meadow, for it was properly consecrated, and was part of the city; but the illiterate thought that the second tithe had to be eaten within the inner (old) wall of Jerusalem, for the verse states: Thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God . . . the tithe of thy corn . . . (Deut. XIV, 23). They were stricter with the tithe than with the sacrifices, because the verse (ibid. 22) states: Thou shalt surely tithe; and they had probably heard the popular exposition: rag,,a khcac rag rag, rag (a play on the word rag,; v. Shab. 119a) — give tithes in order that thou mayest have wealth.
^ˡnote:Haberim ( v. Glos.).
^ᵐnote:Because they knew that the sacrifices and second tithe were equal, and that the lower meadow was properly consecrated and part of the city.
^ⁿnote:They thought the upper meadow was as holy as the lower, because it had also been incorporated within the city by a wall, and they did not distinguished between the full consecration of the lower meadow and the incomplete consecration of the upper meadow.
^ᵒnote:[Tosef. Sanh. III reads, ‘Why was it not consecrated?’]
^ᵖnote:[V. REJ, loc. cit.]
^ᵠnote:For it is stated that the upper meadow was not consecrated, because all the essentials were not present, whereas R. Nahman holds that ‘any one of all these’ suffices.
^ʳnote:As temporary partitions to enable sacrifices to be offered and eaten forthwith (v. n. 8); and then they built the walls near curtain.
^ˢnote:So that the curtains prevented the workmen from gazing into the holy place.
^ᵗnote:Before it was re-built by Ezra; v. Ezra III, 1-6; Meg. 10a, Rashi.
^ᵘnote:Round Jerusalem.
^ᵛnote:Because R. Eliezer requires curtains in order that it may be counted as a Temple; but without curtains it is not holy because, presumably, the first consecration did not consecrated it for the future. R. Nahman will thus agree with R. Eliezer.
^ʷnote:R. Eliezer and R. Joshua are not arguing on this subject, their statements being entirely separate, and not uttered to each other's hearing.
^ˣnote:If R. Eliezer holds that the first consecration consecrated it for the future also.
^ʸnote:The Mishnah (‘Ar. 32a), explaining that walled cities (Lev. XXV, 29, 30) are such which had walls round them since the days of Joshua, mentions a few as examples, such as Gamala, Gedud, etc. Why did the Sages mentioned these particularly? There were many more which could have been mentioned.
^ᶻnote:By Beth din, two loaves of thanksgiving, and song; v. ‘Ar. 32b, Rashi. Cf. however Rashi a.l.
^ᵃᵃnote:Walled cities, mentioned in ‘Ar. 32a.
^ᵃᵇnote:Deut. III, 4, 5.
^ᵃᶜnote:In the same passage.
^ᵃᵈnote:Concerning the sale of a house (Lev. XXV, 20, 30); sending lepers outside the city (Lev. XIII, 46; Num. V, 2); and that the open space (1,000 cubits) round the city should be left uncultivated (‘Ar. 33b).
^ᵃᵉnote:Tosaf. ‘Ar. V.
^ᵃᶠnote:From the Baraitha it appears he holds that the first consecration did not consecrate it for the future, and from the Tosefta it appears he holds that it did.
^ᵃᵍnote:The statement in the Tosefta.
^ᵃʰnote:Lev. XXV, 30; the kethib is vnj tk (‘has not a wall’), but the kere is uk (‘has a wall to it’).
^ᵃⁱnote:Because the first consecration, when it had a wall, suffices for now also, though the wall is now destroyed. Hence, there are two tannaim, R. Ishmael and R. Eleazar b. Jose, who disagree as to whether the first consecration consecrated it for the future also or not; and R. Nahman will agree with R. Ishmael.