Yoma 54a (נד.) — the Talmud in English

As it is written in

the Scroll of Lamentations:

“And he went out from the daughter of Zion”

“All her splendor”—what is meant by ‘all her splendor’?

Her hidden chamber [

because ayin and het interchange, Maharsha], that is, something concealed in the innermost chambers went out from Jerusalem.

But as for

you—

Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai—

what do you say?

He said to him:

Rabbi Shimon said to Rabbi Mattia:

“I say that the Ark was concealed in its place, as it is stated: ‘And the staves were lengthened, and the ends of the staves were seen’

from the Sanctuary, before the partition, but they could not be seen outside; and they remained there until this day.”

We have thus learned that, according to Ulla, Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai holds that the Ark was concealed in its place and was not exiled to Babylonia, contrary to what we learned in the beraita in the name of Rabbi Shimon.

Rava said to Ulla: What indication is there

How does this verse indicate that the Ark was concealed in its place?

Lest you say: Since

it is written

at the end of the verse,

“And they shall be there ‘until this day’,”

which implies that it exists literally until this day—

and

is it so that

wherever “until this day” is written, it means forever?!

But is it not written: “And the Jebusite who dwells in Jerusalem, the children of Benjamin did not dispossess; and the Jebusite dwelled with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem until this day”?

And would you say here as well: Since it says “until this day,”

so too, they were not exiled

the Jebusites from Jerusalem at any time?

But it was taught

in a beraita that they were exiled—

For it was taught:

Rabbi Yehuda says: Fifty-two years

from “the ruins of Jerusalem” and the exile of Zedekiah to Babylonia, until the appointment by Cyrus, king of Babylonia, when they went up to build the Temple [Rashi; see the note ]—

No person passed through Judah, as it is stated

in Jeremiah:

“Upon the mountains I shall raise weeping and lamentation, and over the pastures of the wilderness a dirge, for they have been scorched, with ‘no person passing through

and they heard no sound of livestock; from the birds of the heavens to the beasts, they wandered and went away.’”

Now the word “beasts” is superfluous, since it was already stated: “and they heard no sound of livestock,” which includes beasts. Rather, it means up to the numerical value of the word

“beasts”: by gematria, it equals fifty-two

[R. Elazar Lipman]. We have thus learned that there was a period during which no person, including the Jebusites, passed through Judah for fifty-two years; therefore, the Jebusite did not remain there forever.

And it was taught

further that there was a period during which no person was in the Land of Israel:

Rabbi Yosei says:

It is written in the portion of Nitzavim: “And the later generation, your children who will arise after you, and the foreigner who will come from a distant land, will see the plagues of that land and its illnesses with which the Lord afflicted it: sulfur and salt, the burning of its entire land; it shall not be sown, it shall not produce, and no grass shall rise in it, like the overturning of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, which the Lord overturned in His anger and His wrath. And all the nations will say: Why did the Lord do this to this land? What is the meaning of this great wrath? And they will say: Because they abandoned the covenant of the Lord, God of their fathers, which He made with them when He brought them out of the land of Egypt.”

For seven years, sulfur and salt persisted in the Land of Israel.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: What is Rabbi Yosei’s reason?

And he explains it:

It is derived

by a gezerah shavah,

“covenant, covenant.”

Here it is written

in Daniel:

“And he will strengthen a ‘covenant’ with the many for one week”—

and there it is written

in the portion of Nitzavim:

“And they will say: Because they abandoned the ‘covenant’ of the

Lord, God of their fathers.”

Rabbi Yosei explains it as follows: That covenant mentioned in connection with sulfur and salt was imposed by the enemy upon Israel—who are called “the many,” as it is written, “Great among the nations,” [R. Elazar Lipman] —

for one week [seven years].

We have thus learned that there was a period during which no person was in the Land of Israel. Nevertheless, it is written concerning the Jebusite: “And the Jebusite dwelled there, etc., ‘until this day.’” This shows that it does not necessarily mean forever. How, then, can we infer from “and the staves were lengthened, etc., and they shall be there until this day” that the Ark was not exiled from that place?!

Ulla said to him

Rava, who had raised this objection:

Here,

with regard to the Tablets,

it is written:

“And they shall be”

“there”

until this day;

there,

with regard to the Jebusite,

“there” is not written.

We still wonder:

and

is it so that

wherever “there” is written, it means forever?!

Meytivi

from what is written:

“And some of the children of Simeon went to Mount Seir—five hundred men, with Pelatiah, Neariah, Rephaiah, and Uzziel, the sons of Ishi, at their head—and they struck the remnant of the refugees of Amalek; and they dwelled ‘there until this day.’”

And

it must necessarily not mean forever, for

Sennacherib, king of Assyria, had already arisen and confused

and exiled

all the nations from place to place [Ein Yaakov and Dikdukei Soferim]—

Ein Yaakov and Dikdukei Soferim]—

as it is stated:

“And it shall be, when the Lord has completed all His work on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, I shall punish the fruit of the arrogance of the heart of the king of Assyria and the glory of the haughtiness of his eyes. For he said [the king of Assyria]: By the strength of my hand I have done it, and by my wisdom, for I am discerning;

and I remove the boundaries of nations” [“I exile the nations from province to province,” Targum],

and I remove the boundaries of peoples, translation,

and their treasures

[their situation, R. Elazar Lipman]

I have plundered.

And we conclude:

Tiyuvta!

Rav Naḥman said: It was taught

in a beraita:

“And the Sages say: The Ark was concealed in the Chamber of the Wood Chamber”

[one of the four chambers in the Women’s Courtyard, where the priests wormed the wood]

and concealed.

[Dikdukei Soferim]

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: We, too, have learned—

in the Mishna in Shekalim—that the view is like that of the Sages: the Ark was not exiled but was concealed, though not in the Holy of Holies:

“An incident occurred involving one priest who was occupied

in strolling and playing [Rashi],

and he saw a floor tile

one of the marble tiles in the Chamber of the Wood Chamber, which was

different

[higher]

from its fellows.

He understood that it had been removed from its place, where it had been arranged, and then put back; that was why it was higher—

He came and informed his fellow

of this,

but he did not manage to finish the matter

by showing him the place

before his soul departed, and they knew specifically

[with certainty]

that the Ark was concealed there.

Thus, the Ark was not exiled; it was concealed somewhere in the Temple, but not in the Holy of Holies, for no person entered there [Maharsha].

And we explain:

What was he doing

—that is, what was that priest occupied with?

Rabbi Helbo said: He was occupied

with playing [Targum Jonathan];

he was wielding an axe.

Since the Gemara cited the incident mentioned above, it likewise cited the teaching of the school of Rabbi Yishmael [R. Elazar Lipman; see Shita Mekubetzet]:

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Two blemished priests

who were unfit for the Temple service

were worming the wood

[when they saw a hole in the wood, they split it and removed the worms in it, for any wood containing a worm was unfit for the altar, R. Elazar Lipman] in the Chamber of the Wood Chamber—

And the axe of one of them slipped and fell there

in the place where the Ark was concealed,

and a fire emerged and consumed it

the priest [see Einayim La-Mishpat].

Rav Yehuda raises a contradiction: It is written: “And the ends of the staves were seen”

from the Sanctuary, before the partition, indicating that the staves were visible—

and it is written

in that same verse:

“But they could not be seen outside”?!

How is this possible? They were visible, yet they were not visible,

as explained in the beraita that the Gemara cites.

It was taught likewise:

Maharsha’s version reads [see Ein Yaakov]:

“And the staves were lengthened.”

One might have thought that they did not move from their place

from the place where the Ark stood in the center of the Holy of Holies, ten cubits from it to the entrance; if so, the staves could not have been seen from outside, since they were not ten cubits long—

The verse states: “And the ends of the staves were seen,”

for they were miraculously lengthened until they extended more than ten cubits, so that they could be seen beyond the entrance [see there and Shita Yekara].

One might have thought that they tore through the curtain and emerged.

The verse states: “But they could not be seen outside.”

How is this possible? They pressed against the curtain, protruded through it, and emerged, and were visible

from outside

like the two breasts of a woman

protruding beneath her garment;

as it is stated: “A bundle of myrrh is my beloved to me; he lies between my breasts.”

Rav Ketina said: When the Israelites would ascend for the Festival pilgrimage, they would roll up the curtain

[the version of R. Elazar Lipman and Shita Yekara:

the curtains],

and show them the cherubs that were intertwined

[a term indicating attachment, joined]

with one another

[that is, one with the other, for they were in the form of male and female], embracing one another as a male embraces a female [Rashi]—

And

the ones who rolled up the curtain

would say to them

to Israel:

“See how beloved you are before the Omnipresent, like the love between a male and a female,”

that is, they were not intertwined with one another except when Israel did the will of the Omnipresent [Ritva on page 55b; and this does not appear to be the view of Targum Jonathan].

Rav Hisda raised an objection

from the verse:

“They shall not come to see when the holy objects are covered

[an expression of covering]

and die,”

and

yet

it was

Rabbi Yehuda said that Rav said

to explain: The Levites who carried the Ark and the altar in the Tabernacle were not to come to see

when the furnishings were being inserted

into

their coverings

by the priests when the Israelites dismantled their encampments [as they traveled from place to place]—

If so, how can you say that they showed them the cherubs?

Rav Naḥman said: This is analogous to a bride; as long as she is

in her father’s house,

engaged but not yet married, she is

modest before her husband,

for she is embarrassed before him.

Once she has come to her father-in-law’s house,

after she has married, she is no longer

modest before her husband.

Thus, in the wilderness Israel was like a bride in her father’s house, who was not yet familiar with the Divine Presence; therefore they were not permitted to see the Ark. But in the Temple they were like a bride who had already married,

Rav Ḥana bar Rav Ketina raised an objection

to Rav Naḥman:

“There was an incident involving one priest

in the Second Temple

who was engaged in his work

and saw a section of floor that differed from the others—for the Ark had been concealed there—and he came and informed his fellow. But he did not have time to finish relating the matter before his soul departed.” This demonstrates that they were not permitted to see the Ark even in the Temple?!

Rav Naḥman said to him

: A bride who

was divorced

and then returned—as Israel, who were divorced through the destruction of the First Temple and then returned with the construction of the Second Temple [Rashi]—

is that what you are saying?!

Once she

was divorced

, even though she returned,

the husband and his wife returned

to one another

to their original affection

, to the beginning of their affection, when they were not yet familiar with one another.

And now we question what Rav Ketina said: “When Israel would go up for the pilgrimage, they would roll up the curtain for them and show them the cherubs,” and so on:

What are we dealing with here? If you say it concerns the First Temple

, then

was there a “curtain

” that you say they would roll up the curtain for them? [The version of Ra’avyah and Shiẓ:

“Were there curtains

”—that is, two curtains]?!

Rather

, say that

the matter concerns the Second Temple

, but

were there cherubs

in the Second Temple, so that they could show them to the people?!

And we answer:

Actually, it concerns the First Temple. And what is the meaning of “curtain”? The curtains at the entrances

, opposite the entrances to the Entrance Hall, the Sanctuary, and the Holy of Holies [Rashi’s wording; see note ].

For Rabbi Zeira said that Rav said: There were thirteen curtains in the

Temple

of the

Second Temple:

Seven

curtains

corresponding to the seven

of the

gates

of the Temple courtyard.

Two

additional ones:

one at the entrance to the Sanctuary, and one at the entrance to the Entrance Hall.

Two in the innermost chamber

, in place of the amah טרקסין that had been in the First Temple, as stated above, on page 51b,

and two corresponding to them

—to these two curtains—were

in the upper chamber

, making thirteen curtains.

And just as there were curtains opposite the entrances in the Second Temple, so too were there curtains in the First Temple.

Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said

: It was due to two reasons:

Actually, it concerns the Second Temple

, and as for the difficulty that there were no cherubs in the Second Temple, nevertheless,

depictions of cherubs

painted cherubs] that had been in the First Temple

remained

even in the Second Temple—

as it is written

concerning the Holy of Holies that Solomon made in the Book of Kings:

“And he covered all the walls of the House around with carved work

[he surrounded them with paintings, he surrounded them with drawings],

with carved figures of cherubs

[and he carved figures of cherubs, and forms of cherubs were engraved in it]

and palm trees and garlands of flowers” [and forms of palm trees and opened lilies], as noted.

[and the forms of palm trees and open blossoms], as explained in the note.

And it is written

And it is written

elsewhere in another verse, from which it may be proved that those cherubs in the Holy of Holies were highly distinct [Shiẓ]: “And he carved on the doors of the Sanctuary cherubs and palm trees and garlands of flowers,”

“and he overlaid the engraving with refined gold” [the gold corresponded to the engraving of the forms, receding where the engraving receded and protruding where it protruded, so that the forms would be discernible in it, Rashi there], and so it was also in the Holy of Holies.

[the gold corresponded to the engravings of the forms: it was recessed where the engraving was recessed and raised where the engraving was raised, so that the forms could be recognized in it, Rashi there]. The same was true in the Holy of Holies.

And it is written

concerning the making of the stands [the bases of the basin]: “And he opened, and so on,”

“like the form of a man and wreaths”

around it. Thus he made the cherubs in this manner, and he likewise made them in the Holy of Holies [Shiẓ].

What is the meaning of “like the form of a man and wreaths”?