Shevuot 16a (טז.) — the Talmud in English

It is eaten on the basis of a prophet’s instruction, and it is burned on the basis of a prophet’s instruction,

that is, it is not burned because of the principle of “that which goes out,” but because this is what the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi instructed at the time of the sanctification of Jerusalem; there is no other reason for the matter. We learned in the Mishna: And

any area that was not sanctified with all these

one who enters it is not liable for entering it:

It was stated:

Rav Huna said: “

Any area that was not sanctified

with all these”

is what we learned, and

if one of the matters listed in our Mishna was lacking from the sanctification, it is not a sanctification.

Rav Naḥman said: “

Any area that was not sanctified

with one of all these”

is what we learned, and

not all the matters listed in our Mishna prevent the sanctification; rather, even one of them is sufficient for the sanctification to take effect—

Rav Naḥman’s reasoning is that, after all, in the days of Ezra they sanctified Jerusalem, although there was neither a king nor the Urim and Thummim there. It follows that all the matters listed in the Mishna do not prevent the sanctification.

And we explain their dispute:

Rav Huna said: “

With all these”

With all these”

is what we learned.

Although Ezra’s sanctification proves that not all of them prevent sanctification, that is because he

held: The first sanctification,

with which Solomon sanctified Jerusalem,

sanctified it for its time and sanctified it for the future,

that is, the first sanctity of Jerusalem was not nullified; rather, it has existed from then and forever, and therefore Jerusalem did not require renewed sanctification.

And Ezra

who performed whatever he performed

did so merely as a commemoration,

and one cannot derive from this the requirements for a complete sanctification.

Rav Naḥman said: “

With one of all these”

With one of all these”

is what we learned.

That is because he

held: The first sanctification sanctified it for its time but did not sanctify it for the future, and Ezra sanctified it with a complete sanctification,

a complete sanctification,

even though there was no Urim and Thummim.

Thus, all the matters listed in our Mishna do not prevent sanctification, and we learn that one of them is sufficient to sanctify.

Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman

from the wording of our Mishna, in which we learned: “

Any area that was not sanctified with all these”!?

Rav Naḥman replied to Rava:

Teach

in our Mishna: “Any area that was not sanctified

with one of all these.”

Come and hear

in support of Rav Huna, from the following beraita:

Abba Shaul says: There were two level areas [

terraces ]

on the Mount of Olives [

the Mount of Olives ]:

The lower one,

that is, one of them was at the foot of the mountain,

and the upper one,

the second was above it on the slope of the mountain; and there was a difference between them in the manner of their sanctification:

The lower one was sanctified with all these,

the matters listed in our Mishna, because in the days of the First Temple, when all these requirements were present, they incorporated it into the city and connected it to the city by means of another wall that they built around it—

whereas

the upper one was not sanctified with all these, but by those who ascended from the exile [

when Israel ascended from the Babylonian exile], who enlarged the city and built another surrounding wall outside,

without a king and without the Urim and Thummim;

and therefore:

In the lower one, whose sanctity was complete, amei haaretz entered and ate there lesser sanctified offerings

that are eaten in Jerusalem,

but not second tithe,

whose place of consumption is Jerusalem, because they were particular that it be eaten specifically within the first wall of Jerusalem—

and

whereas

ḥaverim ate there lesser sanctified offerings

and second tithe,

since it possessed the complete sanctity of Jerusalem.

But in the upper one, whose sanctity was not complete, amei haaretz entered and ate there lesser sanctified offerings

improperly,

but not second tithe.

And

whereas

ḥaverim did not eat there either lesser sanctified offerings or second tithe,

since it was not sanctified with the sanctity of Jerusalem.

And why did they not sanctify it,

those who ascended from the exile?

Because

one may enlarge the city or the Temple courtyards only with a king, a prophet, the Urim and Thummim, and a Sanhedrin

of seventy-one, and with two thanksgiving offerings and song,

and in the days of those who ascended from the exile there was neither a king nor the Urim and Thummim, so they could not sanctify it in accordance with the law.

And why did they sanctify it?

Before the Gemara finishes citing the entire beraita, it is astonished at the wording of the beraita: How can you say

“Why did they sanctify it!?”

when

you said that they did not sanctify it!?

Rather,

this is the intention of the beraita:

Why did they incorporate it

and connect it to Jerusalem?

Because it was the exposed and vulnerable side [

its exposure and vulnerability ]

of Jerusalem, and it was easy to conquer it from there.

It is evident from this beraita that it is impossible to sanctify without all the matters listed in our Mishna, and this is unlike Rav Naḥman, who holds that one of them is sufficient!?

And we answer:

It is a dispute between tannaim.

This law depends on a dispute between tannaim—for the beraita that will be explained shortly makes clear that the tannaim disagree concerning the law of the first sanctification, whether it sanctified the area for the future, and this dispute also determines whether all these requirements are indispensable, as was explained above in the Gemara. If so, there is no difficulty against Rav Naḥman, because that beraita which follows Rav Huna does so because it maintains the view of the one who says, “It sanctified it for the future,” and Ezra did not need to sanctify it; therefore, it was sufficient that all these requirements not be present. But an actual sanctification does not take effect without all these requirements. Rav Naḥman, however, follows the tanna who holds that the first sanctification did not sanctify it for the future, and Jerusalem was sanctified in the days of Ezra only through his sanctification; it follows that sanctification is effective even when all these requirements are not present.

As it was taught: Rabbi Eliezer said:

I heard

from my teachers: When the children of the exile ascended in the days of Ezra, they began offering sacrifices twenty-two years before the construction of the Temple was completed, and therefore:

When they were building

in the days of Ezra

the Sanctuary, they made

at first, so that they would be able to offer sacrifices,

curtains

as a substitute

for

the wall of the

Sanctuary, and

curtains

as a substitute

for the wall of the

courtyards,

until they built their walls

; rather,

the position of the wall they were building in relation to the curtains differed between the Sanctuary and the courtyards:

In the Sanctuary they built

the wall

outside

the curtains; that is, they placed the curtains inside the site of the future wall, and built the wall in its proper place outside the curtains

; and

whereas

in the courtyards they built

the wall

inside

the curtains; that is, they placed the curtains outside the site of the wall, and built the wall in its proper place inside the curtains.

Rabbi Yehoshua said: I heard

from my teachers:

a.

Sacrifices may be offered

in the place of the Temple courtyard

even though there is no

yet

Temple there.

there.

b.

The most holy offerings may be eaten

in the place of the Temple courtyard

even though

there are still

no

yet

curtains

for the courtyard.

c. One may eat

lesser sanctified offerings and second tithe

in Jerusalem

even though

there is still

no wall—

because the first sanctification sanctified it for its time and sanctified it for the future.

From here one can learn that there is a dispute between tannaim concerning the law of “it sanctified it for the future,” for

is it not included

that Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree on this matter?

For Rabbi Eliezer held:

The first sanctification

did not sanctify it for the future,

and therefore Rabbi Eliezer said that they had to make curtains until they built the wall, for if there is no Temple there is no sacrifice, since the first sanctification had been nullified. Rabbi Yehoshua came to disagree with this, saying that neither a Temple nor curtains nor a wall is necessary, because the first sanctification was not nullified.

He said,

expressing his astonishment,

Ravina to Rav Ashi:

From where

is it certain that there is a dispute here concerning this law? After all,

perhaps everyone agrees that the first sanctification

sanctified it for its time and sanctified it for the future,

as Rabbi Yehoshua said, and there is no dispute between their statements at all.

One master—

Rabbi Eliezer—

was stating what he had heard, and the other master—

Rabbi Yehoshua—

was stating what he had heard;

that is, the two traditions do not disagree, but are two traditions concerning two different matters—

And if you would say:

Surely it is established from the context itself that Rabbi Eliezer holds that it did not sanctify it for the future, for if that were not so,

why do I need curtains, according to Rabbi Eliezer?

For what purpose did they need curtains at all, unless it was because one cannot offer sacrifices without a Temple and therefore curtains were needed?

This is not difficult, for the curtains were needed

merely for modesty,

when the sacrifices were being offered. If so, there is no proof from here that the tannaim disagree concerning the first sanctification. But if so, the difficulty against Rav Naḥman still remains, from the earlier beraita, which makes clear that sanctification requires all of them!?

Rather, these tannaim [

these tannaim ] are the ones who disagree concerning the first sanctification, whether it sanctified the area for the future:

As it was taught:

We learned in Arakhin 32a: “And these are walled cities”—[whose law differs from that of houses in unwalled villages, as the seller may redeem them only until one year has passed, after which they become the permanent property of the purchaser]—“three courtyards, each containing two houses, surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua son of Nun,” such as the old fortress of Tzippori, Ḥaqra of Gush Ḥalav, and Yodfat.

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said:

Why did the Sages enumerate

in the Mishna in Arakhin only

these

cities,

these

with regard to the mitzva of walled cities, even though many towns were surrounded by walls? Because

when the children of the exile ascended

in the days of Ezra,

they found

these

cities,

and sanctified them

with the sanctity of walled cities.

But the earlier ones were nullified when

the Land

was nullified,

that is, when Israel was exiled from the Land. Thus it is evident that

Rabbi Ishmael bar Yosei holds:

the First Sanctity

with which the cities were sanctified

sanctified them for its time but did not sanctify them for the future—

We have here one tanna who holds: The First Sanctity sanctified them for its time but did not sanctify them for the future; whereas another tanna holds that it sanctified them for the future, as

And we raise a contradiction

from another beraita, in which we learned:

Rabbi Ishmael bar Yosei said: Were these

cities surrounded by a wall in Eretz Yisrael

alone?

But it has already been stated

concerning Israel’s war against Og: “

Sixty cities, the entire region of Argov, the kingdom of Og in Bashan; all these were fortified cities with high walls

with doors and bars”—thus, there were many cities surrounded by a wall—

Rather, why did the Sages enumerate these, which, when the children of

the exile ascended, they found and sanctified?

Before the Gemara had finished bringing the continuation of the beraita, where we learned: “And not only these, but any city concerning which you have received a tradition from your ancestors that it was surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua, son of Nun—all these mitzvot apply in it, because the First Sanctity sanctified them for its time and sanctified them for the future”—we raise an objection to it:

And were

they sanctified now

when they ascended from the exile?

But we say below—

in the continuation of the beraita—

that there is no need to sanctify them,

but any city that had been surrounded by a wall was sanctified for its time and for the future; so why is another act of sanctification necessary?

And we answer:

Rather,

this is what it should say: They

found

these cities

and enumerated them!

The Gemara returns once again to complete the beraita:

And not these

cities

alone

are subject to the law of walled cities;

rather, any city concerning which you have received a tradition from your ancestors

that it was surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua, son of Nun—all these mitzvot

apply in it, because the First Sanctity sanctified them for its time and sanctified them for the future—

But

this is Rabbi Ishmael bar Yosei’s difficulty against Rabbi Ishmael bar Yosei!?

The members of the academy resolved this with two answers:

If you wish, say: They are two tannaim

who differ

in accordance with the view of Rabbi Ishmael bar Yosei

that is, they disagree concerning the opinion of Rabbi Ishmael bar Rabbi Yosei—

If you wish, say: One of them

one of the beraitot—

was stated by Rabbi Elazar bar Yosei,

as will be explained below.

In either event, we find that the tannaim disagree concerning the First Sanctity, whether it sanctified them for the future.

As it was taught: Rabbi Elazar bar Yosei says:

It is written in the passage concerning houses in walled cities: “

Which has no wall,”

and we learn from the wording “lo”—“no”—that on the one hand it means “which has no wall,” that it does not have a wall; and on the other hand it can be understood as “which has a wall,” that it does have a wall:

Even though it does not have

a wall

now, and previously it did have one.

And just as this is the law with regard to a wall, so too is the law with regard to sanctity: Although it was not sanctified now, but only previously, it is likewise sanctified for the future.