Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 17, scan section 33

15]: " And on the day that tabernacle," etc., hence on tlie day, but not on the night. " By the chorus,'' etc. The rabbis taught: The orchestra of the thanks-offering consisted of violins, fifes, trumpets on every corner as well as on every elevated stone in Jerusalem and used to play [Psalm xxx. 2]: "I will extol thee, O Lord, for thou hast lifted me," etc., and also [ibid., 91]. Some call this latter song iVif^^m (plagues) because of verse [ibid., 10] in which it reads, " Nor shall any plague," etc; others call it Pegaim, be- cause of verse [ibid., 7]: " There shall fall at thy side a thou- sand." They used to sing this song from verse i to 10 inclusive, and also the whole of Chap. IH. of Psalms. R. Jehoshua b. Levi used to say all the verses mentioned above before going to bed. But this seems hardly credible, as he himself said somewhere that none should cure one's self with the verses of the Torah. The answer is that protecting and curing are two different things, and he prohibited to say such verses over a wound. ''^ " Folloived by the two thanks-offerings,'" etc. Shall we as- sume that the thanks-ofTerings follow the court, when we read [Ne'hem. xii. 31, 32]: "Two thanks-offerings . . . after them walked Hosha'yah," etc.? Nay; it means thus: They were all walking, the court being behind the offerings. In what order were the two offerings carried? R. 'Hyye and R. Simeon b. Rabbi differ concerning this: according to one they were one opposite the other, while according to the other they were placed one behind the other. According to the former opinion the one offering that was to be sacrificed on the inner altar was brought near the wall, while according to the latter opinion the one that * See Sanhedrim. TRACT SHEBUOTH (OATHS). 21 was near to the people of the court was sacrificed. R. ^ Dhanan, however, said : It was left to the prophet to decide which of the offerings was to be burnt and which to be eaten. " But whatever has not been constructed,'" etc. It was taught : R. Huna says:^// the details were essential in the construction, while R. Na'hman said : Whatever was not constructed with one of them, etc. R. Huna bases his theory on the fact that the first sanctification sanctified for the future, too, while Ezra's sanctification was but a kind of memorial. On the other hand R. Na'hman holds that the first sanctification was confined only to the present and Ezra sanctified for his time although there were no Urim and Tumim. Rabha objected to R. Na'hman from our Mishna which plainly states, " in this manner," i.e., with all the details specified there; whereupon he answered: Read there " whatever was not constructed with one of them." Come and hear another objection: Aba Saul said, there were two Bitzin on the olive mountain, an upper and a lower one; the lower one was sanctified strictly in the manner prescribed by the Mishna, while the upper one was sanctified only by the as" cendants from the exile, in the absence of both king and Urim and Tumim. The lower one, whose sanctification was com- plete, common people used to enter and consume there their lenient holy food, but not second tithe; scholars, however, used to consume there both. In the upper one of the incomplete sanctification the common people used to consume the lenient holiness, while the scholars did not partake there of anything. But why did not they sanctify it completely? Because the com- plete sanctification needs a king, etc., as prescribed by the Mishna, and such were not at that time. But why, then, was it at all considered a part of Jerusalem? Because being a suburb of Jerusalem it was easily accessible (hence, it is obvious that sanctification cannot be complete unless performed in the manner prescribed by the Mishna)? Concerning this matter the Tanaim of the following Boraitha differ. Ismael b. Josh said: To what purpose did the rabbis enumerate all the cities surrounded by walls from the time of Jehoshua b. Nun? Because the ascend- ants of the exile being placed in these cities, sanctified them; the first sanctification, however, was abolished when the land ceased to be that of Israel. R. Ismael thus holds that the first sanctification was good only for the present, but not for the future, and this would meet with a contradiction in the follow- ing. R. Ismael b. Josh said: Were, then, only these cities? 22 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. Is it not written [Deut. vi. 4, 5]: " Sixty cities ... all these were fortified cities," why, then, had the sages enumerated them? Because the ascendants of the exile were placed in them ; and not only to these cities, but also to all cities which were, according to tradition, surrounded with walls at the time of Jehoshua, apply all the commandments imposed upon such cities; for the first sanctification has sanctified them for the future also; whence it is evident that R. Ismael contradicts himself. The answer is that one of these Boraithas was said not by R. Ismael, but by R. Elazar b. Josh, as the following Bor- aitha states, it reads [Levit. xxv. 30]: " Lo choma," meaning literally no wall; but according to the traditional reading it is Lo-choma, meaning " it has a wall," i.e., though it has no wall now but was walled at the time Israel entered Palestine. " In the courtyard and forgot it,'" etc. Whence is this de- duced? Said R. Elazar [Numb. xix. 20]: "Because the sanc- tuary of the Lord hath he defiled," and [ibid., 13]: "Hath defiled the tabernacle of the Lord " ; now, as there in so neces- sity of two verses for the inner defilement, one should be applied to the outer one. But are, indeed, the two verses superfluous? Are they not both needed for what we have learned in the fol- lowing Boraitha in the name of R. Elazar: Why have two verses to mention both sanctuary and tabernacle, was not one suffi- cient? The answer is: If only tabernacle were mentioned, it could be accounted for by the fact of its being annointed with the holy oil, which was not the case with the temple, and there- fore no liability is attached to defilement of latter, on the other hand, if only the holy temple were mentioned, the reason would be that it was sanctified once forever, which was not the case with the tabernacle; hence, the necessity of both the verses? R. Elazar found difficulty to see the reason for using two names, sanctuary and tabernacle, since elsewhere these two names are used synonymously; he, therefore, infers therefrom his two foregoing conclusions. His statement, however, that the temple is called tabernacle is correct, from [Lev. xxv. 11]: " And will set my tabernacle {mishkoni) among you " ; but where is it found that tabernacle is called temple? In [Exod. xxv. 8]: "And they shall make me a sanctuary and I will dwell in it"; and verse 9 says: " I show thee the pattern of the tabernacle."