Shevuot 16a — the Talmud in English

It is eaten according to a prophet, and it is burned according to a prophet,

that is, it is not burned on account of being “taken outside,” but rather this is what the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi instructed at the time of the consecration of Jerusalem, and there is no reason for the matter. We learned in the Mishna: And

any [area] that was not made with all these

one who enters there is not liable on its account:

It was stated:

Rav Huna said: “

Anything that was not made

with all these

we learned,”

and if one of the matters taught in our Mishna was lacking in the consecration, it is not a consecration.

Rav Naḥman said: “

Anything that was not made

with one of all these

we learned,”

and not all the matters taught in our Mishna prevent the consecration; rather, even one of them suffices for the consecration to take effect—

And Rav Naḥman’s reason is that, after all, in the days of Ezra they consecrated Jerusalem, and there was neither a king nor the Urim ve-Tummim there; therefore, not all those mentioned in the Mishna prevent [the consecration].

And we explain their dispute:

Rav Huna said: “

With all these

With all these”

we learned,”

and even though from Ezra’s consecration it is proven that not all of them prevent [the consecration], this is because he

held: The first sanctity

with which Solomon consecrated Jerusalem

consecrated it for its time and consecrated it for the future;

that is, the first sanctity of Jerusalem was not nullified, but has remained from then and forever, and it follows that Jerusalem did not require a new consecration,

and Ezra

who did what he did

did it merely as a commemoration,

and one cannot derive from this [anything] concerning a complete consecration.

Rav Naḥman said: “

With one of all these

With one of all these”

we learned”;

this is because he

held: The first sanctity consecrated it for its time but did not consecrate it for the future, and Ezra consecrated it with a complete

consecration

even though there was no Urim ve-Tummim,

so not all those mentioned in our Mishna prevent [the consecration], and we learn that one of them suffices in order to consecrate.

Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman

from the wording of our Mishna, where we learned: “

Any [area] that was not made with all these”!?

Rav Naḥman answered Rava:

Teach

in our Mishna: “Anything that was not made

with one of all these.”

Come and hear

in accordance with the words of Rav Huna, from that which was taught in a beraita:

Abba Shaul says: There were two plots [

areas ]

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,

and the other was above it on the slope of the mountain; and there was a distinction between them in the manner of the consecration:

The lower one was consecrated with all these

that were taught in our Mishna, for in the days of the First Temple, when all these were present, they brought it within [Jerusalem] and joined it to the city by means of another wall that they built around it—

whereas

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

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

without a king and without the Urim ve-Tummim;

and therefore:

In the lower one, whose sanctity was complete, common people entered there and ate there lesser sacred offerings

that are eaten in Jerusalem,

but not second tithe,

whose place of eating is in Jerusalem, because they were particular to eat it specifically within the first wall of Jerusalem—

and

whereas

members ate there lesser sacred offerings

and second tithe,

for it had the complete sanctity of Jerusalem.

But in the upper one, whose sanctity was not complete, common people entered there and ate there lesser sacred offerings

unlawfully,

but not second tithe.

And

whereas

members did not eat there either lesser sacred offerings or second tithe,

for it was not sanctified with the sanctity of Jerusalem.

And why did they not consecrate it

those who ascended from the exile?

Because

one may not add to the city or to the Temple courtyards except with a king, a prophet, the Urim ve-Tummim, 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 ve-Tummim, and they could not consecrate it according to the law.

And why did they consecrate it?

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

“Why did they consecrate it!?”

when

you said that they did not consecrate it!?

Rather,

this is the intention of the beraita:

Why did they bring it within

and join it to Jerusalem?

Because it was the exposed side [

its exposure and vulnerability ]

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

It is thus explicit from this beraita that it is impossible to consecrate without all those mentioned in our Mishna being present, and this is unlike Rav Naḥman, who holds that one of all these suffices!?

And we answer:

It is a dispute among tannaim,

for this law depends upon a dispute among tannaim—for the beraita that will be explained shortly makes clear that the tannaim disputed the law of the first sanctity, whether it consecrated [Jerusalem] for the future, and this dispute also determines whether all these [conditions] prevent [the consecration], as was explained above in the Gemara. If so, there is no difficulty for Rav Naḥman, because that beraita which follows Rav Huna does so because it holds the view of the one who says, “It consecrated it for the future,” and Ezra did not need to consecrate [Jerusalem], and therefore it was sufficient without all these being present. But an actual consecration does not take effect without all these being present. Rav Naḥman, however, follows the tanna who holds that the first sanctity did not consecrate it for the future, and Jerusalem was consecrated in the days of Ezra only through his consecration; therefore, consecration is effective even without all these being present.

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Eliezer said:

I heard

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

When they were building

in the days of Ezra

in the Sanctuary, they made

at first—in order that they could sacrifice offerings—

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 placement of the wall they built 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 location of the future wall, and they built the wall in its proper location outside the curtains

; and

whereas

in the courtyards they built

the wall

inside

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

Rabbi Joshua said: I heard

from my teachers:

a.

Offerings may be sacrificed

in the place of the courtyard

even though there is not

yet

a House there.

there.

b.

Sacred offerings of the most holy order may be eaten

in the place of the courtyard

even though

there is still

no

there

curtain

for the courtyard.

c. Lesser sacred offerings

and second tithe

are eaten in Jerusalem

even though

there is still

no wall—

because the first sanctity consecrated it for its time and consecrated it for the future.

And from here one can learn the dispute among tannaim concerning the law of “consecrated it for the future,” for

is it not part of the matter

that there is a dispute here between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua:

For Rabbi Eliezer held:

The first sanctity

did not consecrate it for the future,

and therefore Rabbi Eliezer said that they needed to make curtains until they built the wall, for if there is no House there is no offering, since the first sanctity was nullified; and Rabbi Joshua came to dispute this, saying that a House, curtains, and a wall are not required, because the first sanctity was not nullified.

He said

in astonishment

to Rav Ashi, Ravina:

From where

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

perhaps everyone agrees that the first sanctity

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

as Rabbi Joshua said, and there is no dispute between them at all;

and one master—

Rabbi Eliezer—

said what he heard, and the other master—

Rabbi Joshua—

said what he heard,

that is, the two traditions do not dispute one another, but are two traditions concerning two different matters—

And if you would say:

But it is decided from the matter itself that Rabbi Eliezer holds that it did not consecrate it for the future, for if not,

the curtains, according to Rabbi Eliezer, why do I need them?

For what purpose were curtains needed at all, if not because it is impossible to sacrifice without a House, and therefore the curtains were necessary?

This is not difficult—for the curtains were needed

merely for modesty,

at the time of sacrificing the offerings. If so, there is no proof from here that the tannaim disputed the law of the first sanctity. If so, the difficulty still remains against Rav Naḥman, who said, “With one of all these we learned,” from the earlier beraita, which makes clear that it is sanctified only with all of them!?

Rather, these tannaim [

these tannaim ] are the ones who disputed the law of the first sanctity, whether it consecrated [Jerusalem] for the future:

As it was taught in a beraita:

We learned in Arakhin 32a: “And these are the walled cities: three courtyards, each containing two houses, surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua son of Nun, such as the ancient fortress of Sepphoris, the fort of Gush Ḥalav, and Yodefat.”

Rabbi Ishmael son of Rabbi Yosei said:

Why did the Sages enumerate

in the Mishna in Arakhin only

the

cities

these

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

when the children of the exile ascended

in the days of Ezra, they

found

the cities

these,

and consecrated them

with the sanctity of walled cities.

But the first ones were nullified when

the land

was nullified, that is, when Israel was exiled from the land.

Thus it holds that

Rabbi Ishmael bar Yosei:

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; while, on the other hand, another tanna holds that it sanctified them for the future, for [the Gemara]

was explained according to Rashi, who wrote: “He holds that it did not sanctify them, and we raise a contradiction: [from another source]”—this is the [unclear: isolated letter]; tanna. And if you say: Surely Rabbi Joshua certainly holds that it sanctified them for its time and sanctified them for the future, since he said: “They offer [sacrifices] even though there is no Temple”; if so, why do we need to prove that there is another tanna who holds this? The Maharsha wrote: From Rabbi Joshua above and from several anonymous Mishnayot, he could have brought [proof] that they hold that there is sanctity for the future; rather, it was preferable for him to bring it from this very matter of the walled cities, where there is one who says that it did not sanctify them for the future, and there is one who says that it sanctified them for the future. 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 the Land of Israel

alone?

But it has already been said

in the war of Israel against Og: “

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

with doors and a bar,” so it follows that there were many cities surrounded by a wall—

Rather, why did the Sages enumerate these, that when the descendants of

the exile came up, they found these and sanctified them—

And before the Gemara finished bringing the continuation of the beraita, where we learned there: “And not only these, but any city concerning which you possess 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 against it:

And is it so that

they sanctified them now

when they came up from the exile?

For we say below—

in the continuation of the beraita—

that there is no need to sanctify

but rather, every city that was surrounded by a wall was sanctified for its time and for the future; and why do I need another sanctification!?

And we answer:

Rather,

say this:

they found

cities

these and enumerated them!

And again the Gemara returns to finish the beraita:

And not these

cities

alone

are subject to the law of walled cities,

but any city concerning which you possess 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

there is the difficulty of Rabbi Ishmael bar Yosei against Rabbi Ishmael bar Yosei!?

And the members of the academy resolved this with two answers:

If you wish, say: they are two tannaim

who hold

according to Rabbi Ishmael bar Yosei [

who disputed the view of Rabbi Ishmael bar Yosei]—

If you wish, say: one of them [

one of the beraitot],

Rabbi Elazar bar Yosei said it,

as he explains and proceeds.

And in either case, we find that tannaim disputed regarding the first sanctity, whether it sanctified them for the future.

For it was taught: Rabbi Elazar bar Yosei says:

It is written in the section of houses in walled cities: “

which has no wall,”

and we learn from the wording “which has no wall” that, on the one hand, it means “which has no wall,” that it has no wall. And, on the other hand, it means “which has a wall,” that it has a wall:

Even though it does not have

a wall

now, and it had one previously. And just as with regard to a wall this is so, so too is the law with regard to sanctity: even though it was not sanctified now, but only previously, it is also sanctified for the future.

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.