Shevuot 15b — the Talmud in English

But if you say:

perhaps you will say: he should not bring a leavened meal-offering and sanctify with its remainder; rather, he should bring a meal-offering that is not leavened, but

leaven it

after the taking of the handful,

for the remainders

alone,

and sanctify with them,

and say that the Torah’s principal concern is that one should not sacrifice leaven on the altar, as it is written: “For no leaven or any honey shall you make smoke from it as an offering to the Lord”; and this is the handful, which they make smoke on the altar, but with regard to the remainders, which are eaten by the priests, the Torah was not particular—

this cannot be said—for

is it not written: “

Every meal-offering that you bring to the Lord’

shall not be baked leavened—

their portion

I have given it from My offerings by fire”?

And Reish Lakish said

to learn from this juxtaposition:

even their portion,

the portion of the priests in the remainders of the meal-offering, is also

not to be baked leavened.

And if so, it is impossible to sanctify with the remainders of leavened meal-offerings.

And we raise an objection against this:

Why not?

Do you not find sanctification with leaven!? For

it is possible that he sanctifies

the Temple court

with the two loaves on Shavuot,

which come leavened, and they too, once they leave outside the Temple court, become disqualified.

And we answer:

because it is impossible

to sanctify with them, for

what shall we do

[how shall we do it]—

Perhaps you will say:

let him build it

the wall of the Temple court

from the day before

[on the eve of Shavuot],

and sanctify it

with its construction

from the day before

[on that day]. This cannot be said, for

the two loaves, through the slaughtering of the lambs

which was on the Festival day itself,

are what become sanctified,

and on the eve of Shavuot they are not sanctified at all.

Perhaps you will say:

let him build it

the wall of the Temple court

from the day before

[on the eve of the Festival],

and sanctify it now

[and sanctify the Temple court on the Festival after the loaves become sanctified]. This too is impossible, for

we require sanctification at the time of the construction,

and not on the following day.

Perhaps you will say:

let him build it on the Festival and sanctify it on the Festival.

This too is impossible, for

there is no construction

of the

Temple that overrides the Festival.

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

Perhaps you will say:

let us leave it afterward,

[let us leave the bread that became sanctified on the Festival until after the Festival],

and

on the day after the Festival

let him build it

for the Temple court

and sanctify it

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

it would become disqualified through overnight

[the bread would become disqualified through overnight]. For once the night has passed over it, it becomes notar, leftover sacrificial meat, since the bread may be eaten only on that day and during the following night; and if some of it remains, it is disqualified, for it is “leftover.”

Perhaps you will say:

let him build it

for the main wall of the Temple court

from the eve of the day

[from the eve of the Festival]

and leave in it

in the construction of the wall

a little

[a small amount],

so that until the day becomes sanctified—

immediately let him complete it and sanctify it

[immediately, when the sanctity of the day ends, they will build what remains to be built, and on that same night, before midnight, while it is still the time of its eating, he will sanctify the Temple court]. This too is impossible.

There is no construction of the Temple at night,

because

Abaye said: From where is it that there is no construction of the Temple at night? For it is stated: “And on the day that the Tabernacle was set up

”; and we learn:

By day he sets it up; at night he does not set it up

—

Therefore, it is impossible

to sanctify with the remainders of leavened meal-offerings, but with those of unleavened offerings; and whenever it is impossible, it does not prevent validity.

We learned in our Mishna: that one may not add to the city, nor with two thanksgiving-offerings and with song:

The Sages taught:

The song that they would recite there was

the song of thanksgiving,

namely, the section “A psalm of thanksgiving.” And they would accompany the songs

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

And it says,

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

“I will extol You, O Lord

for You have raised me up”,

until the end of the section,

and the song of afflictions,

namely, the section “He who sits in the concealment of the Most High” called “the song of afflictions,” that is, a song concerning the harmful spirits that afflict human beings to harm them,

and some say

that it is called

the song of plagues.

And the Gemara explains the reason for these names:

The one who says

the song

of plagues, because

it is

written

in that section:

“And no plague shall come near your tent.”

And the one who says

“afflictions,” because

it is

written

in that section:

“A thousand may fall at your side

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

And what would they sing from that section?

And it says:

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

until

“For You, O Lord,

are my refuge.”

And he repeats and says from the section “A psalm of David, when he fled,” from

“

O Lord,

how numerous are my foes,” “

until O Lord

is the salvation.”

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi would recite these verses

[he would recite before sleeping the verses of “the song of afflictions”],

and he slept,

and then he would sleep, and he did so in order to protect himself.

And we raise an objection:

How did he do this

[how did Rabbi Joshua ben Levi do so]?

But Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said

himself:

It is forbidden to heal oneself with words of Torah!?

And we answer: A healthy person who recites verses in order

to protect

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

is different.

And we raise an objection against this:

But rather,

it is implied by itself that

when

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said

“it is forbidden,”

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 forbidden,”

and nothing more

!?

But we learned: One who whispers over a wound

and says, “Of every illness that I placed upon Egypt I will not place upon you, for I am the Lord your healer,”

has no share in the World to Come!

And necessarily, when he said “it is forbidden,” he was referring to a case in which he still has no wound, and he recites the verses only in order to protect himself from it. If so, it is still difficult: how did Rabbi Joshua ben Levi recite these verses, even though they came only to protect him!?

And we answer:

It was stated concerning it

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

Rabbi Yohanan said: They taught this with regard to spitting!

And the severity of the punishment is

because one does not mention the Name of Heaven over spittle.

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

We learned in the Mishna:

The court proceeds, and two thanksgiving-offerings

and all Israel behind them:

And we raise an objection:

Does it mean

that it is indeed as implied by the wording of the Mishna,

that the court walked before the thanksgiving-offerings

[the court would walk before the thanksgiving-offerings]!?

But it is written

in Nehemiah there:

“And I appointed two great thanksgiving-offerings,”

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

It follows that the court would walk after the thanksgiving-offerings!?

And we answer:

This is what it says

in our Mishna:

The court proceeds, and two thanksgiving-offerings proceed, and all Israel follows them.

That is, “and two thanksgiving-offerings” does not join with what we learned at the end, “behind them,” for that applies only to all Israel; “and two thanksgiving-offerings” that we learned joins with what we learned, “and the court proceeds.” That is, the court would proceed, and the two thanksgiving-offerings would also proceed, and the tanna is not addressing the order in which they proceeded. In any event, the court would walk after the thanksgiving-offerings, and after the court all Israel would proceed.

And the Gemara continues to explain:

How

would the two thanksgiving-offerings

proceed?

Rabbi Hiyya and Rabbi Shimon the son of Rabbi,

disagreed about the matter:

One

of them

said: This opposite that,

that is, one beside the other.

And one

of them

said: This after that,

they would proceed.

And according to their opinions we explain the wording of our Mishna: “The inner one is eaten and the outer one is burned”:

For

the one who says: This opposite that

they would proceed,

“the inner one”

means

the one that is nearer the wall

of the new city.

And for

the one who says: This after that

they would proceed,

“the inner one”

means

the one that is nearer the court

which was walking after the two thanksgiving-offerings, namely, the thanksgiving-offering that was walking last.

And we raise an objection:

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

And the Gemara assumed that the reason it is burned is because of the disqualification of “going outside.” Therefore the Gemara asks:

Granted, according to the one who says: This after that

they would proceed,

because of this

[therefore]

the inner one—

that is, the last one—

is eaten,

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

because

already

the outer one came, stood, and sanctified it.

[The first one had already proceeded before it and sanctified] the place, and the last one proceeds in a sanctified place and never went outside.

But according to the one who says: This opposite that

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

both of them are sanctified together

[they sanctify together], and what reason is there to distinguish between the inner one and the outer one, that this is eaten and that is burned!?

The Gemara is astonished at the questioner’s objection:

But according to your reasoning

[and according to your method, is it satisfactory],

for

the one who says: This after that, one

alone, is it sanctified!?

Before you say that the first one is indeed “going outside,” while the second one is not “going outside,” since it was already sanctified through the first one—

But

“Anyone who has not been performed through all these

who enters there is not liable for it,”

we learned

in our Mishna; and if so, the city was not sanctified until two valid thanksgiving-offerings had proceeded, whereas the first one is “going outside” and is disqualified.

And even according to the one who says

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

through one of all these—

the things taught in our Mishna—one who enters there is not liable for it,”

we learned,

and according to his position you might say: since the second one is valid, the city became sanctified, for it is sanctified through only one of all those taught in our Mishna; this too cannot be said, for:

These two

thanksgiving-offerings [these two thanksgiving-offerings]

are one mitzva,

and one does not sanctify without the other, and it follows that both of them become disqualified through going outside.

Rather, Rabbi Yohanan said: