POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Shevuos 16
SHEVUOS 16-18 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
1) IS EVERY DETAIL ESSENTIAL?
(a) (Mishnah): An addition that was not made with all of
these (does not get Kedushah).
2) DID THE FIRST KEDUSHAH CEASE?
(b) (Rav Huna): This is the correct text.
(c) (Rav Nachman): The text should say, an addition that was
not made with *one of these* (does not get Kedushah).
1. (According to Rav Huna, Ezra could not Mekadesh the
second Mikdash, since they lacked the Urim v'Tumim;)
(d) Question (Rava - Mishnah): An addition that was not made
with all of these (does not get Kedushah).
i. He must hold that when Shlomo was Mekadesh the
Mikdash, the place became permanently Mekudash,
Ezra's actions were only a *remembrance* of
2. (According to Rav Nachman, Ezra was Mekadesh the
second Mikdash, even without the Urim v'Tumim;
i. He holds that the Kedushah of the first Mikdash
(e) Answer (Rav Nachman): The text should say, an addition
that was not made with *one of these*.
(f) Question (Beraisa - Aba Sha'ul): There were two swamps on
the Mount of Olives, the lower one was Mekudash with
everything mentioned in the Mishnah (during the first
Mikdash), the upper one was Mekudash by the exiles who
returned from Bavel, without a king or the Urim v'Tumim;
1. The lower swamp had full Kedushah; ignoramuses would
eat Kodshim Kalim there, but not Ma'aser Sheni;
Chaverim (people who properly guard the laws) would
eat Kodshim Kalim and Ma'aser Sheni there;
(g) Answer: Tana'im argue (as follows) whether or not the
Kedushah of the first Mikdash ceased (and Rav Nachman
holds like the opinion that it ceased).
2. The upper swamp did not have full Kedushah;
ignoramuses would eat Kodshim Kalim there, but not
Ma'aser Sheni; Chaverim would not eat Kodshim Kalim
nor Ma'aser Sheni there.
i. They could not fully Mekadesh it, for to add on
to Yerushalayim or the Azarah we need a king, a
prophet, the Urim v'Tumim, the great Sanhedrin
of 71, two loaves of a Todah and singing.
3. Question: Why did they Mekadesh it?
4. Objection: The Beraisa just said that they could not
5. Correction: Rather, why did they build a new wall
including it with Yerushalayim?
6. Because it was they easiest place for enemies to
attack from and conquer Yerushalayim.
(a) (Beraisa - R. Eliezer): I have a tradition that when
building the Heichal and the walls of the Azaros, they
set up curtains;
1. The builders of the Heichal were outside the
curtains (of the Heichal), the builders of the
Azaros were inside the curtains (of the Azaros).
(b) R. Yehoshua: I have a tradition that we may bring
sacrifices even though the Mikdash is not standing;
Kodshei Kodoshim may be eaten (where the Azarah should
be) even though there are no curtains, Kodshim Kalim and
Ma'aser Sheni may be eaten (in Yerushalayim) even though
the wall is not standing.
1. This is because Shlomo's Kedushah was permanent.
(c) Rather, the following: Tana'im argue whether or not the
first Kedushah ceased.
2. Suggestion: R. Eliezer argues, he holds that
Shlomo's Kedushah ceased (therefore, curtains were
needed in order to offer sacrifices until the
building was finished)!
3. Rejection (Ravina): Perhaps all agree that Shlomo's
Kedushah was permanent; each Tana said what he
i. Question: If so, why did they need curtains?
ii. Answer: The curtains were to prevent workers
from deriving pleasure by looking at the
Heichal, and to prevent people from seeing the
(d) (Beraisa - R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi): Chachamim (Erchin
32) lists (walled) cities that were Mekudashos by those
who returned from Bavel;
1. The Kedushah of the walled cities from the period of
the first Mikdash ceased when the Kedushah of Eretz
Yisrael ceased (when Nebuchadnetzar conquered it).
(e) Contradiction (Beraisa - R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi): The
cities (listed in Erchin 32) are not the only walled
cities - Moshe conquered "Shishim Ir...Mamleches
i. This shows that R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi holds
that the first Kedushah ceased.
1. We only list the cities that the returning exiles
found and were Mekadesh.
(f) Answer #1: The Tana'im of these two Beraisos argue
regarding his opinion.
i. Interjection: But (the end of this Beraisa says
that) they did not need to Mekadesh them!
2. Correction: Rather, we listed cities known to have
had a wall;
i. If there is a tradition about other cities that
they had a wall when Yehoshua entered Eretz
Yisrael, the Mitzvos of walled cities (one who
sells a house has a year to redeem it, a
Metzora cannot stay there) also apply to them,
because the first Kedushah remains.
3. R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi contradicts himself!
(g) Answer #2: The latter Beraisa is really R. Elazar b'Rebbi
1. (Beraisa - R. Elazar b'Rebbi Yosi): "Asher Lo
Chomah" - 'Lo' is spelled with an Aleph, to hint
that even if it currently does not have a wall, but
once did, it is considered a walled city (because
the first Kedushah remains).
3) ONE WHO BECAME "TAMEI" IN THE MIKDASH
(a) (Mishnah): If he became Tamei in the Azarah and forgot...
4) WAITING LONG ENOUGH TO BOW
(b) Question: How do we know that one is liable (lashes or
Kares) if he became Tamei in the Azarah (and did not
(c) Answer (R. Elazar (the Amora)): It says "Es Mishkan
Hash-m Timei" and "Es Mikdash Hash-m Timei";
1. We do not need two verses for when he became Tamei
outside and entered, so one teaches about when he
became Tamei inside.
(d) Question: We need both for when he became Tamei outside!
1. (Beraisa - (R. Elazar (the Tana)): The Torah must
teach that he is liable for the Mishkan and the
Mikdash, because we could not learn from one to the
(e) Answer: R. Elazar (the Amora) expounded the change of
i. If it only taught the Mishkan - one might have
thought, this is because it was anointed with
the anointing oil!
ii. If it only taught the Mikdash - one might have
thought, this is because its Kedushah is
permanent! (Rashi - once the Mikdash was built,
private altars were forbidden forever; Tosfos -
it endured longer than the Mishkan, or because
it can only be rebuilt in the same place.)
1. Since the Mishkan is called Mikdash and vice-versa,
the Torah could have written both times 'Mishkan' or
'Mikdash', and we would have known to include both;
(f) We know that the Mishkan is called Mikdash - "V'Nasati
2. It changed the language to teach another law as well
(when he became Tamei inside).
(g) Question: What is the source that the Mikdash is called
1. Suggestion: "V'Nase'u ha'Kehasim Nose'ei
(h) Answer: "V'Asu Li Mikdash v'Shachanti b'Socham"..."Tavnis
2. Rejection: That does not refer to the Mikdash
itself, rather to the Aron (and the vessels of the
(a) (Mishnah): If one Mishtachaveh (bows) or delays long
enough to Mishtachaveh...
(b) Version #1 (Rava): (He is liable for a quick Hishtachavah
-) this is when he bows towards the west (where the
Divine Presence is);
1. If he bows towards the east, he is liable only if he
delays (the time of a proper Hishtachavah).
(c) Version #2 - Inference: He is liable for Hishtachavah
only if he delays.
(d) (Rava): This is when he bows towards the east, but if he
bows towards the west, he is liable even without
(e) Question: What is Hishtachavah with and without delay?
(f) Answer: Hishtachavah without delay is bending the knees;
Hishtachavah with delay is prostrating on the hands and
(g) Question: What is the time for Hishtachavah with delay?
(h) Answer #1 (R. Yitzchak bar Nachmani or R. Shimon ben
Pazi): The time to say the verse "V'Chol Benei Yisrael
(i) Answer #2 (The other of R. Yitzchak bar Nachmani and R.
Shimon ben Pazi): The time to say the end of this verse
starting from "Va'Yichre'u".
(j) (Beraisa): 'Kidah' refers to bowing and putting one's
face on the ground - "Va'Tikod Bas Sheva Apayim Eretz";
1. 'Kri'ah' is bending the knees - "Mi'Kero'a Al
2. 'Hishtachavah' is prostrating on the hands and feet
- "Lehishtachavos Lecha Artzah".