## Shevuot Daf 16a

###### Shevuot 16a:1
[Shevuot 16a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/16a:1)

עַל פִּי נָבִיא נֶאֱכֶלֶת וְעַל פִּי נָבִיא נִשְׂרֶפֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Based on a ruling of a prophet** the loaves of one thanks-offering **were eaten, and based on a ruling of a prophet** the loaves of the other thanks-offering **were burned.** The prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, who lived at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah’s reconsecration of Jerusalem, instructed the people concerning how the ceremony should be conducted, without providing reasons for the procedures.


###### Shevuot 16a:2
[Shevuot 16a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/16a:2)

כֹּל שֶׁלֹּא נַעֲשֵׂית בְּכׇל אֵלּוּ כּוּ׳. אִיתְּמַר, רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: ״בְּכׇל אֵלּוּ״ תְּנַן, רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: ״בְּאַחַת מִכׇּל אֵלּוּ״ תְּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: And with regard to **any** addition to the Temple **that was not made with all these** ceremonial procedures, one who enters there while ritually impure is not liable. **It was stated** that *amora’im* disagreed about the text of the mishna. **Rav Huna says: We learned** in the mishna: **With all these,** which means that all of these procedures are indispensable, and if even one is missing, the consecration does not take effect. **Rav Naḥman says: We learned** in the mishna: **With one of all these;** i.e., any one of these procedures suffices for the consecration to take effect.


###### Shevuot 16a:3
[Shevuot 16a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/16a:3)

רַב הוּנָא אָמַר ״בְּכׇל אֵלּוּ״ תְּנַן – קָסָבַר קְדוּשָּׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה קִידְּשָׁה לִשְׁעָתָהּ וְקִידְּשָׁה לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא, וְעֶזְרָא זֵכֶר בְּעָלְמָא הוּא דַּעֲבַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further clarifies this disagreement. **Rav Huna says: We learned** in the mishna: **With all these.** The Gemara explains: **He maintains** that **the initial consecration** of the Temple in the days of David and Solomon **sanctified** it **for its time and sanctified** it **forever.** Therefore, the site of the Temple retained its original sanctity even during the days of the Second Temple. **And Ezra,** who reconsecrated the area, **did** so **merely as a commemoration** of the initial consecration. Accordingly, even though there was no king or *Urim VeTummim*, the entire area was fully consecrated. By contrast, in order to consecrate an area that had not been part of the initial consecration, all of these procedures are necessary and none can be omitted.


###### Shevuot 16a:4
[Shevuot 16a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/16a:4)

רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר ״בְּאַחַת מִכׇּל אֵלּוּ״ תְּנַן – קָסָבַר: קְדוּשָּׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה קִידְּשָׁה לִשְׁעָתָהּ וְלֹא קִידְּשָׁה לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא, וְעֶזְרָא קַדּוֹשֵׁי קַדֵּישׁ אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא הֲווֹ אוּרִים וְתוּמִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman says: We learned** in the mishna: **With one of all these.** The Gemara explains: **He maintains** that **the initial consecration** of the Temple **sanctified** it **for its time** only, **and did not sanctify** it **forever. And Ezra consecrated** the Temple and its courtyards, **even though there was no** king or ***Urim VeTummim*.** Consequently, it follows that there is no need for all of these procedures in order for the consecration to take effect.


###### Shevuot 16a:5
[Shevuot 16a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/16a:5)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: ״כֹּל שֶׁלֹּא נַעֲשֵׂית בְּכׇל אֵלּוּ״! תָּנֵי: ״בְּאַחַת מִכׇּל אֵלּוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman:** The mishna explicitly states: **Any** addition **that was not made with all these** procedures. Rav Naḥman said to him: Emend the mishna and **teach** it as stating: **With one of all these** procedures.


###### Shevuot 16a:6
[Shevuot 16a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/16a:6)

תָּא שְׁמַע, אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: שְׁנֵי בִּיצְעִין הָיוּ בְּהַר הַמִּשְׁחָה, תַּחְתּוֹנָה וְעֶלְיוֹנָה. תַּחְתּוֹנָה – נִתְקַדְּשָׁה בְּכׇל אֵלּוּ; עֶלְיוֹנָה – לֹא נִתְקַדְּשָׁה בְּכׇל אֵלּוּ, אֶלָּא בְּעוֹלֵי גוֹלָה; שֶׁלֹּא בְּמֶלֶךְ וְשֶׁלֹּא בְּאוּרִים וְתוּמִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites a proof against the opinion of Rav Naḥman: **Come** and **hear** a *baraita*: **Abba Shaul says: There were two ponds [*bitzin*] on the Mount of Olives [*Har HaMishḥa*], a lower** pond **and an upper** pond. **The lower** pond **was consecrated** during the time of the First Temple **with all** the procedures mentioned in the mishna, and it has the sanctity of Jerusalem for all purposes. By contrast, **the upper** pond **was not consecrated with all these** procedures, **but** rather it was consecrated **by those who returned from the exile** in Babylonia, **without a king and without** the ***Urim VeTummim*.**


###### Shevuot 16a:7
[Shevuot 16a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/16a:7)

תַּחְתּוֹנָה שֶׁהָיְתָה קְדוּשָּׁתָהּ גְּמוּרָה – עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ נִכְנָסִין לְשָׁם, וְאוֹכְלִין שָׁם קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים אֲבָל לֹא מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי; וַחֲבֵרִים אוֹכְלִים שָׁם קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: With regard to **the lower** pond, **whose consecration was complete, *amei ha’aretz*,** uneducated people who were not scrupulous in their observance of the mitzvot relating to tithes and to ritual purity, **would enter into there and** would **partake of offerings of lesser sanctity** that may be eaten in all of Jerusalem **there, but** they would **not** partake of **second tithe** there because they conducted themselves stringently concerning this matter. **And *ḥaverim*,** who were meticulous in their observance of those mitzvot, **would partake of** both **offerings of lesser sanctity and second tithe there.**


###### Shevuot 16a:8
[Shevuot 16a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/16a:8)

עֶלְיוֹנָה שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה קְדוּשָּׁתָהּ גְּמוּרָה – עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ הָיוּ נִכְנָסִין שָׁם, וְאוֹכְלִין שָׁם קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים אֲבָל לֹא מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי; וַחֲבֵרִים אֵין אוֹכְלִין שָׁם לֹא קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים וְלֹא מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא קִידְּשׁוּהָ? שֶׁאֵין מוֹסִיפִין עַל הָעִיר וְעַל הָעֲזָרוֹת אֶלָּא בְּמֶלֶךְ וְנָבִיא וְאוּרִים וְתוּמִּים, וּבְסַנְהֶדְרִין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד, וּבִשְׁתֵּי תּוֹדוֹת וּבְשִׁיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: As for **the upper** pond, **whose consecration was incomplete, *amei ha’aretz* would enter into there and partake of offerings of lesser sanctity there, but** they would **not** partake of **second tithe** there. **And *ḥaverim* would partake of neither offerings of lesser sanctity nor second tithe there. And for what** reason **did they not consecrate** the upper pond? It was **because additions can be made to the city** of Jerusalem **or to the** Temple **courtyards only by** a special body comprising the **king, a prophet, the *Urim VeTummim*, and the Sanhedrin of seventy-one, and with two thanks-offerings and with** a special **song.**


###### Shevuot 16a:9
[Shevuot 16a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/16a:9)

וְלָמָּה קִידְּשׁוּהָ? לָמָּה קִידְּשׁוּהָ?! הָא אָמְרַתְּ לֹא קִידְּשׁוּהָ! אֶלָּא לָמָה הִכְנִיסוּהָ? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁתּוֹרְפָּהּ שֶׁל יְרוּשָׁלַיִם הָיְתָה, וְנוֹחָה הִיא לִיכָּבֵשׁ מִשָּׁם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But why did they consecrate** the upper pond if they could not do so properly? This Gemara responds: **Why did they consecrate it? Didn’t you say** that **they did not consecrate it? Rather,** the question should be asked as follows: Given that they could not consecrate the upper pond, **why did they bring it within** the walls of the city? The Gemara answers: **Because it was a weak point [*turpa*] of Jerusalem and it would have been easy to conquer** the city **from there,** it became necessary to include it within the wall. This *baraita* seems to present explicit proof against the opinion of Rav Naḥman, who holds that there is no need for all of the procedures listed in the mishna in order for the consecration to be complete.


###### Shevuot 16a:10
[Shevuot 16a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/16a:10)

תַּנָּאֵי הִיא; דְּתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: שָׁמַעְתִּי כְּשֶׁהָיוּ בּוֹנִין בַּהֵיכָל, עָשׂוּ קְלָעִים לַהֵיכָל וּקְלָעִים לָעֲזָרוֹת. אֶלָּא שֶׁבַּהֵיכָל בּוֹנִין מִבַּחוּץ, וּבָעֲזָרוֹת בּוֹנִין מִבִּפְנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof: This **is** a dispute between ***tanna’im*** as to whether the initial consecration of Jerusalem and the Temple sanctified them only for their time or forever. Abba Shaul maintains that the initial consecration lapsed, and therefore the reconsecration required all of the procedures mentioned in the mishna. Where is this dispute taught? **As it is taught** in a mishna (*Eduyyot* 8:6): **Rabbi Eliezer says: I heard** that **when they were building the Sanctuary** in the Second Temple, **they fashioned** temporary **curtains for the Sanctuary and** temporary **curtains for the courtyards** to serve as partitions until the construction of the stone walls was completed. The difference was **only that in the Sanctuary,** the workers **built** the walls **outside** the curtains, without entering, **and in the courtyards,** the workers **built** the walls **within** the curtains.


###### Shevuot 16a:11
[Shevuot 16a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/16a:11)

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁמַּקְרִיבִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בַּיִת, אוֹכְלִין קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין קְלָעִים, קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין חוֹמָה; מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקְּדוּשָּׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה קִידְּשָׁה לִשְׁעָתָהּ וְקִידְּשָׁה לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא. לָאו מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר: לֹא קִידְּשָׁה לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: **Rabbi Yehoshua says: I heard that one sacrifices offerings** on the altar **even if there is no Temple,** and **one partakes of offerings of the most sacred order** in the Temple courtyard **even if there are no curtains, and** one partakes of **offerings of lesser sanctity and second-tithe** produce in Jerusalem **even if there is no wall** surrounding the city. This is **due to** the fact **that the initial consecration sanctified** the Temple and Jerusalem **for their time and** also **sanctified** them **forever.** The Gemara concludes: From the fact that Rabbi Yehoshua based his opinion on the principle that the initial consecration sanctified the Temple and Jerusalem forever, can one **not** learn **by inference** that **Rabbi Eliezer maintains** that **it did not sanctify** them **forever?** Apparently, this issue is the subject of a dispute between *tanna’im*.


###### Shevuot 16a:12
[Shevuot 16a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/16a:12)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: מִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא קְדוּשָּׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה קִידְּשָׁה לִשְׁעָתָהּ וְקִידְּשָׁה לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא, וּמָר מַאי דִּשְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ קָאָמַר, וּמָר מַאי דִּשְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ קָאָמַר. וְכִי תֵּימָא: קְלָעִים לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְמָה לִי? לִצְנִיעוּתָא בְּעָלְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said to Rav Ashi: From where** do you draw this inference? **Perhaps everyone** maintains that **the initial consecration sanctified** the Temple and Jerusalem **for their time and** also **sanctified** them **forever. And** one **Sage,** Rabbi Eliezer, **stated that** tradition, **which he heard** from his teachers, **and** one **Sage,** Rabbi Yehoshua, **stated that** tradition, **which he heard** from his teachers, and there is no dispute between them. **And if you would say: Why do I** need **curtains** at all **according to Rabbi Eliezer?** The original sanctity remained when Jerusalem was not surrounded by walls, and similarly, the presence or absence of curtains is irrelevant to the sanctity of the Temple area. The Gemara answers: The curtains were established **merely for seclusion,** as it would have been unbecoming for the activity in this most sacred venue to be visible to all.


###### Shevuot 16a:13
[Shevuot 16a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/16a:13)

אֶלָּא הָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי – דְּתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: לָמָּה מָנוּ חֲכָמִים אֶת אֵלּוּ? שֶׁכְּשֶׁעָלוּ בְּנֵי הַגּוֹלָה, מָצְאוּ אֵלּוּ וְקִידְּשׁוּם. אֲבָל רִאשׁוֹנוֹת בָּטְלוּ מִשֶּׁבָּטְלָה הָאָרֶץ. אַלְמָא קָסָבַר: קְדוּשָּׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה קִידְּשָׁה לִשְׁעָתָהּ וְלֹא קִידְּשָׁה לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** this matter is subject to a dispute between **these *tanna’im*, as it is taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the walled cities listed in the mishna in tractate *Arakhin* (32a): **Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: Why did the Sages enumerate** specifically **these** nine cities as cities that were walled since the days of Joshua, son of Nun? In fact, there were many more. The reason is **that when the exiles ascended** to Eretz Yisrael from Babylonia in the time of Ezra, **they found these** cities **and consecrated them** as walled cities; **but the** sanctity of the **first** walled cities, enumerated in the book of Joshua, **was nullified when** settlement in **Eretz** Yisrael **was negated** and the Jewish people were exiled. The Gemara comments: **Apparently,** Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, **maintains: The initial consecration sanctified** the Temple and Jerusalem **for their time** only **and did not sanctify** them **forever.**


###### Shevuot 16a:14
[Shevuot 16a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/16a:14)

ורְמִינְהִי, אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: וְכִי אֵלּוּ בִּלְבַד הָיוּ?! וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״שִׁשִּׁים עִיר כׇּל חֶבֶל אַרְגֹּב מַמְלֶכֶת עוֹג בַּבָּשָׁן, כׇּל אֵלֶּה עָרִים בְּצֻרוֹת חוֹמָה גְבֹהָה״! אֶלָּא לָמָּה מָנוּ חֲכָמִים אֶת אֵלּוּ – שֶׁכְּשֶׁעָלוּ בְּנֵי הַגּוֹלָה מָצְאוּ אֵלּוּ וְקִידְּשׁוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** from a different *baraita*: **Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, says: Were these** cities that are enumerated in tractate *Arakhin* **the only** walled cities? **But isn’t it already stated: “Sixty cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og, king of Bashan, all these were cities fortified with high walls,** gates and bars” (Deuteronomy 3:4–5), indicating that there were many walled cities in the time of Joshua? **Rather, why** then **did the Sages enumerate** specifically **these** cities? It is due to the fact **that when the exiles ascended** from Babylonia **they found these and consecrated them** as walled cities.


###### Shevuot 16a:15
[Shevuot 16a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/16a:15)

קִידְּשׁוּם הַשְׁתָּא?! הָא אָמְרִינַן לְקַמַּן דְּלָא צְרִיכָא לְקַדּוֹשֵׁי! אֶלָּא מָצְאוּ אֵלּוּ וּמְנָאוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **They consecrated them?** If their sanctity remained, it should not have been necessary to consecrate them. **Now, don’t we say later** in the same *baraita* **that it is not necessary to consecrate** them? The Gemara clarifies: **Rather,** this is what the *baraita* means to say: When the exiles ascended from Babylonia **they found these and enumerated them.**


###### Shevuot 16a:16
[Shevuot 16a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/16a:16)

וְלֹא אֵלּוּ בִּלְבַד, אֶלָּא כׇּל שֶׁתַּעֲלֶה בְּיָדְךָ מָסוֹרֶת מֵאֲבוֹתֶיךָ שֶׁמּוּקֶּפֶת חוֹמָה מִימוֹת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן – כׇּל מִצְוֹת אֵלּוּ נוֹהֲגוֹת בָּהּ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקְּדוּשָּׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה קִידְּשָׁה לִשְׁעָתָהּ וְקִידְּשָׁה לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא. קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בַּר יוֹסֵי אַדְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בַּר יוֹסֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **And not only these, but** in **any** city with regard to **which you receive a tradition from your ancestors that it was surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua, son of Nun, all these mitzvot** with regard to walled cities **are observed in it, due to** the fact **that the initial consecration sanctified** the Temple and Jerusalem **for their time and sanctified** them **forever.** The Gemara comments: This is **difficult,** as there is a contradiction between one statement **of Rabbi Yishmael bar Yosei and** another statement **of Rabbi Yishmael bar Yosei.**


###### Shevuot 16a:17
[Shevuot 16a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/16a:17)

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: תְּרֵי תַּנָּאֵי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בַּר יוֹסֵי; אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: חֲדָא מִינַּיְיהוּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר יוֹסֵי אַמְרַהּ. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: ״אֲשֶׁר לוֹא חֹמָה״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ עַכְשָׁיו וְהָיָה לוֹ קוֹדֶם לָכֵן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **If you wish, say** that there are **two *tanna’im*** who disagree **with regard to** the opinion **of Rabbi Yishmael bar Yosei.** Each transmitted Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion in a different manner. And **if you wish, say** instead that one of the traditions is mistaken, as **one of the** *baraitot* **was stated by Rabbi Elazar bar Yosei,** and not his brother, Rabbi Yishmael. **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Elazar bar Yosei says** that the verse with regard to walled cities states: **“Which has [*lo*] a wall”** (Leviticus 25:30). The word *lo* is written with an *alef*, meaning no, and accordingly the verse would be stating to the contrary, that the city does not have a wall, but its vocalization is in the sense of its homonym, *lo* with a *vav*, meaning that it has a wall. This indicates that **even if it does not presently have** a wall **but it had** a wall **previously,** it retains its status as a walled city. It is Rabbi Elazar bar Yosei who maintains that the first consecration sanctified the Temple and Jerusalem forever.