Shevuot 15b (טו:) — the Talmud in English

And if you say:

Perhaps he should not bring a leavened meal-offering and sanctify the area with its remnants; rather, he should bring a meal-offering that is not leavened, but

leaven them

after the kemitza

for the remnants

alone,

and sanctify with them,

and say that the Torah’s primary concern is that one not offer leaven on the altar, as it is written: “For no leaven or honey may you burn as an offering to the Lord”; and it is the kemitza that is burned on the altar, whereas with regard to the remnants, which are eaten by the priests, the Torah was not particular—

This cannot be said, because

isn’t it written: “

Every meal-offering that you bring to the Lord

shall not be baked leavened—

their portion

I have given it from My offerings”?

And Reish Lakish said

to derive from this juxtaposition:

Even their portion,

the priests’ portion in the remnants of the meal-offering,

shall not be baked leavened.

If so, it is impossible to sanctify with the remnants of leavened meal-offerings.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Why not

find a case of sanctification with leaven!? After all,

it is possible to sanctify

the Temple courtyard

with the two loaves on Shavuot,

which are brought leavened; and they too, once they leave the courtyard, become disqualified.

The Gemara answers:

Because it is impossible

to sanctify with them, for

what should we do—

Perhaps you will say:

Let us build it

the wall of the courtyard

the day before

on the eve of Shavuot,

and sanctify it

as it is being built

the day before

on that same day. This cannot be said, because

the two loaves are sanctified through the slaughter of the sheep,

which took place on the Festival itself; on the eve of Shavuot they are not sanctified at all.

Perhaps you will say:

Let us build it

the wall of the courtyard

the day before

on the eve of the Festival,

and sanctify it today,

and sanctify the courtyard on the Festival after the loaves become sanctified. This too is impossible, because

we require sanctification at the time of construction,

and not on the following day.

Perhaps you will say:

Let us build it on the Festival and sanctify it on the Festival.

This too is impossible, because

the construction

of the

Temple does not override the Festival.

And since it is not possible to sanctify the courtyard with leaven, they sanctify it with the remnants of meal-offerings that are unleavened.

Perhaps you will say:

Let us leave it until afterward,

leaving the loaves that became sanctified on the Festival until after the Festival,

and

the day after the Festival

let us build it

the courtyard

and sanctify it

with the two loaves that remained from the previous day. This too cannot be said, since

they would be disqualified by being left overnight,

the loaves would become disqualified through remaining overnight. Once the night has passed, they become notar, for the loaves may be eaten only on that day and during the following night; if any remains, it is disqualified, since it is notar.

Perhaps you will say:

Let us build it

the main part of the wall of the courtyard

on the eve of the Festival,

and

leave in it

in the wall’s construction

a small amount,

a little,

until the day is sanctified—

immediately let us complete it and sanctify it,

immediately upon completion of the sanctity of the day they would build what remained to be built, and on that same night, before midnight, while the loaves were still permitted to be eaten, sanctify the courtyard. This too is impossible.

The Temple may not be built at night,

because

Abaye said: From where is it derived that the Temple may not be built at night? As it is stated: “And on the day that the Tabernacle was erected”—

and we learn:

It is erected by day; it is not erected at night.

—

Therefore, it is impossible

to sanctify with the remnants of leavened meal-offerings, only with those of unleavened offerings; and whenever something is impossible, it does not invalidate the procedure.

We learned in our Mishna: One does not add to the city, and this is done with two thanksgiving-offerings and with song:

The Sages taught:

The song that they would recite there was

the song of thanksgiving,

namely, the chapter “A psalm of thanksgiving.” And the songs were accompanied

by lyres, harps, and cymbals, at every corner and every large stone in Jerusalem.

And it says,

meaning, they would also sing there from the chapter “A psalm, a song at the dedication of the House, by David”:

“I will exalt You, Lord

for You have raised me up”,

until the end of the chapter;

and the song of plagues,

namely, the chapter “He who sits in the covert of the Most High” , which is called “the song of plagues,” meaning a song concerning the destructive forces that afflict human beings to harm them;

and some say

that it is called

the song of afflictions.

The Gemara explains the reasons for these names:

The one who says

the song

of afflictions,

it is because

it is written

in that chapter:

“And no affliction shall come near your tent.”

And the one who says

“plagues,”

it is because

it is written

in that chapter:

“A thousand may fall at your side

and ten thousand at your right hand; it shall not come near you.”

And what would they sing from that chapter?

And it says:

“He who sits in the covert of the Most High, who lodges in the shadow of the Almighty,”

until

“For You, Lord, are

my refuge.”

And he would resume and say

from the chapter “A psalm of David, when he fled,” from

“Lord,”

“How numerous are my enemies,”

until “To the Lord

is the salvation.”

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi would recite these verses to them,

he would recite before sleep the verses of “the song of plagues,”

and he would sleep,

and he did so in order to protect himself.

The Gemara raises an objection:

How did he do this

how could Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi do so?

But Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi

himself

said: It is prohibited to seek healing through words of Torah!?

The Gemara answers: A healthy person who recites verses in order

to protect

himself from afflictions, so that they should not come upon him,

is different.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But if so,

it follows that

when

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said

“It is prohibited,”

he was referring to a case

in which there is

already a

wound!?

But

if there is

already a

wound, did he say only

“It is prohibited,”

and nothing more

!?

But we learned:

One who whispers over a wound, saying, “Of all the diseases that I placed upon Egypt I shall not place upon you, for I am the Lord your healer,”

has no share in the World to Come!

It must be that when he said “It is prohibited,” he was referring to a case in which one does not yet have a wound, and he recites the verses only to protect himself from it. If so, the difficulty still remains: How could Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi recite these verses, even though they were intended only for protection!?

The Gemara answers:

It was stated concerning it

with regard to that Mishna, which says that he has no share in the World to Come:

Rabbi Yohanan said: They taught this with regard to one who spits!

And the severity of the punishment is

because one may not mention the Divine Name over spittle.

For he whispers and says: “For I am the Lord your healer.”

We learned in the Mishna:

The court proceeds, and the two thanksgiving-offerings

and all Israel follow them:

The Gemara raises an objection:

Does this imply

that it is indeed as the wording of the Mishna indicates,

that the court walked before the thanksgiving-offerings

?

But it is written

there, in Nehemiah:

“And I set up two great thanksgiving-offerings,”

“and Hosheaiah and half the princes of Judah went after them.”

Thus, the court went after the offerings!?

The Gemara answers:

This is what it says

in our Mishna:

“The court proceeds, the two thanksgiving-offerings proceed, and all Israel follow them.”

That is, “and the two thanksgiving-offerings” does not join with what is stated at the end, “after them,” for that refers only to all Israel; rather, “and the two thanksgiving-offerings” joins with what is stated, “and the court proceeds.” In other words, the court proceeded, and the two thanksgiving-offerings also proceeded, without the tanna addressing the order in which they walked. In fact, the court went after the offerings, and all Israel proceeded after the court.

The Gemara continues to explain:

How

did the two thanksgiving-offerings

proceed?

Rabbi Hiyya and Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi,

disagreed about this:

One

of them

said: One opposite the other,

meaning, side by side.

And one

of them

said: One after the other,

they proceeded.

The Gemara explains the wording of our Mishna, “the inner one is eaten and the outer one is burned,” according to their respective opinions:

According to

the one who says: One opposite the other,

they proceeded,

“the inner one”

means

the one closer to the wall

of the new city.

And according to

the one who says: One after the other,

they proceeded,

“the inner one”

means

the one closer to the court,

which walked after the two thanksgiving-offerings, namely, the offering that proceeded last.

The Gemara raises an objection:

We learned: The inner one is eaten, and the outer one is burned.

The Gemara assumed that the reason it is burned is because of the disqualification of yotze, an offering that has exited its permitted area. Therefore, the Gemara asks:

Granted, according to the one who says: One after the other,

they proceeded,

because of this

therefore,

the inner one—

that is, the latter one—

is eaten,

because it was not disqualified through yotze, even though they proceeded with it outside Jerusalem,

because

the

outer one had already come, stood, and sanctified it.

The first had already proceeded before it and sanctified the place; the latter proceeded in a sanctified place and never exited it.

But according to the one who says: One opposite the other,

they proceeded, and one did not proceed after the other; if so,

both of them were sanctifying simultaneously,

both sanctified together. What basis is there for distinguishing between the inner one, which is eaten, and the outer one, which is burned!?

The Gemara expresses astonishment at the question:

But according to your reasoning,

and is it satisfactory according to your approach? After all,

according to the one who says one after the other, does only one

by itself

become sanctified!?

Before you say that the first one is indeed yotze and the second is not yotze, since it was sanctified by the first—

But

“Anyone who has not been performed through all these,

one who enters there is not liable for it,”

we learned

in our Mishna. If so, the city was not sanctified until two valid thanksgiving-offerings had proceeded, whereas the first is yotze and disqualified.

And even according to the one who says

below, 16a: “Anyone who has not been performed

through one of all these—

those listed in our Mishna—one who enters there is not liable for it,”

we learned,

and according to his view you might say: Since the second is valid, the city became sanctified, for it is sanctified through any one of those listed in our Mishna; even so, this cannot be said, because:

These two

thanksgiving-offerings,

are a single mitzva,

and one does not sanctify without the other; consequently, both are disqualified through yotze.

Rather, Rabbi Yohanan said: