Shevuot 15aשבועות ט״ו א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
15aט״ו א

וכן תעשו לדורות

and so shall you do” (Exodus 25:9). The final words: “And so shall you do,” are superfluous and serve to teach: As was done in the Tabernacle, so shall you do in future generations.

מתיב רבא כל הכלים שעשה משה משיחתן מקדשתן מכאן ואילך עבודתן מחנכתן ואמאי ונימא וכן תעשו לדורות

Rava raises an objection from a baraita: With regard to all the sacred vessels that Moses fashioned, their anointment with oil consecrates them. From that point forward, in the generations after Moses, new vessels do not require anointment to be consecrated; rather, their use in the Temple service initiates them and renders them fit for use. Rava clarifies the objection: But why is this so? Let us say here as well that the phrase “and so shall you do” teaches that the same must be done in future generations.

שאני התם דאמר קרא (במדבר ז, א) וימשחם ויקדש אותם אותם במשיחה ולא לדורות במשיחה

The Gemara answers: It is different there, as the verse states with regard to the Tabernacle and its vessels: “And he anointed them and consecrated them” (Numbers 7:1). This teaches that it is only “them,” the vessels fashioned by Moses, that are consecrated through anointment, but vessels fashioned in later generations are not consecrated through anointment.

אימא אותם במשיחה לדורות או במשיחה או בעבודה אמר רב פפא אמר קרא (במדבר ד, יב) אשר ישרתו בם בקדש תלאן הכתוב בשירות

The Gemara asks: Why not say: “Them,” the vessels made by Moses, he consecrated specifically through anointment, but vessels made in future generations are consecrated either through anointment or through their initial service? Rav Pappa said: The verse states: “And they shall take all the service vessels, with which they will serve in the Sanctuary” (Numbers 4:12). The future tense “they will serve,” indicates that the verse is referring to future vessels, and the verse makes them dependent upon service, teaching that in future generations vessels will be consecrated through their initial service.

השתא דכתב רחמנא אשר ישרתו אותם למה לי אי לא כתב רחמנא אותם הוה אמינא הני הוא דבמשיחה לדורות במשיחה ובעבודה דהא כתב וכן תעשו מיעט רחמנא אותם אותם במשיחה ולא לדורות במשיחה:

The Gemara asks: Now that the Merciful One has written “with which they will serve,” why do I need the restrictive term “them”? The Gemara answers: Had the Merciful One not written “them,” I would say that they, the vessels made by Moses, were consecrated through anointment alone, but vessels made in later generations must be consecrated both through anointment and through service, as the Torah wrote: “And so shall you do,” referring to future generations. Therefore, the Merciful One excluded future vessels from anointment by stating “them,” teaching that it is only them that were consecrated through anointment, but in later generations they are not consecrated through anointment.

ובשתי תודות: תנא שתי תודות שאמרו בלחמן ולא בבשרן מנהני מילי אמר רב חסדא דאמר קרא (נחמיה יב, לא) ואעמידה שתי תודות גדולות ותהלוכות לימין מעל לחומה

§ The mishna teaches: And with two thanks-offerings. A tanna taught in a baraita: And with regard to the two thanks-offerings that are mentioned here, the reference is to their loaves, but not to their flesh. An animal thanks-offering is accompanied by forty loaves of bread that are brought as a meal-offering. Ten loaves are leavened, and the remainder is comprised of ten each of three types of unleavened bread. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Ḥisda said: As the verse states with regard to the consecration of the wall of Jerusalem in the days of Ezra: “And I placed two large thanks-offerings, and we went in procession to the right upon the wall” (Nehemiah 12:31).

מאי גדולות אילימא ממין גדול ממש נימא פרים אלא גדולות במינן

The Gemara clarifies the meaning of this verse: What is meant by “large”? If we say that the animals of the thanks-offering were literally from a large species, i.e., oxen, rather than from a small species, i.e., sheep, let the verse state that they were oxen. Rather, let us say that he took animals from among the largest and the finest quality of their species.

מי איכא חשיבותא קמי שמיא והתניא נאמר בעולת בהמה (ויקרא א, ט) אשה ריח ניחח בעולת העוף (ויקרא א, ט) אשה ריח ניחח במנחה (ויקרא ב, ב) אשה ריח ניחח מלמד שאחד המרבה ואחד הממעיט ובלבד שיכוין את לבו לאביו שבשמים

The Gemara challenges this: Is the size of the offering of any importance before Heaven? But isn’t it taught in a mishna (Menaḥot 110a): It is stated with regard to an animal burnt-offering: “A fire offering, a pleasing aroma” (Leviticus 1:9), and it is also stated with regard to a bird burnt-offering: “A fire offering, a pleasing aroma” (Leviticus 1:17), and it is also stated with regard to a meal-offering: “A fire offering, a pleasing aroma” (Leviticus 2:2). The same term is used in all three cases even though the three offerings are of different value. This teaches that one who brings a substantial sacrifice and one who brings a modest sacrifice have equal merit, and both offerings are accepted as having a pleasing aroma, provided that one directs his heart to his Father in Heaven.

אלא גדולה שבתודה ומאי ניהו חמץ דתנן התודה היתה באה מן חמש סאין ירושלמיו' שהן שש מדבריות שהן שתי איפות והאיפה שלש סאין עשרים עשרון עשרה לחמץ ועשרה למצה ובמצה שלשה מינין חלות רקיקין ורבוכה

Rather, let us say that “large thanks-offerings” means the larger element in the thanks-offering loaves. And what is that? The leavened loaves, as we learned in a mishna (Menaḥot 76b): The meal part of the thanks-offering came from five Jerusalem se’a of flour, which are equivalent to six wilderness se’a. The se’a referred to in the Bible when the Jewish people were in the wilderness is smaller than the se’a used later in Jerusalem. This is equivalent to two ephahs, each ephah being three wilderness se’a. These two ephahs are twenty measures of a tenth of an ephah. Ten of these tenths were used to make leavened loaves and ten of these tenths were used to make unleavened loaves. And the unleavened loaves were of three types: Loaves of matza, wafers, and measures of flour mixed with water and oil. Accordingly, the leavened loaves were three times the size of the unleavened ones, and it was the leavened loaves that were used to consecrate additions to the city.

אמר רמי בר חמא אין העזרה מתקדשת אלא בשירי מנחה מאי טעמא כירושלים מה ירושלים דבר הנאכל בה מקדשה אף עזרה דבר הנאכל בה מקדשה

Rami bar Ḥama says: One can infer from this baraita that the Temple courtyard is consecrated only with the remainder of the meal-offering, and not by the loaves of a thanks-offering. The remainder of the meal-offering is the part left over after a handful of it and its frankincense have been sacrificed on the altar; this remainder is eaten by a priest. What is the reason for this? The consecration of the Temple courtyard is like the consecration of Jerusalem. Just as with regard to Jerusalem, an item that is eaten specifically in it, i.e., the loaves of a thanks-offering, which are eaten anywhere in the city, consecrates the city, so too, with regard to the Temple courtyard, an item that is eaten specifically in it, i.e., the remainder of the meal-offering, consecrates the courtyard.

אטו לחמי תודה בעזרה מי לא מתאכלי אלא כירושלים מה ירושלים דבר הנאכל בה ויוצא ממנה נפסל אף עזרה דבר הנאכל בה והיוצא ממנה נפסל

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the loaves of a thanks-offering are not eaten in the Temple courtyard? Rather, the comparison should be drawn as follows: The consecration of the Temple courtyard is like the consecration of Jerusalem. Just as Jerusalem is consecrated with the loaves of a thanks-offering, which is an item that is eaten inside the city, and which, if it emerges from there, is disqualified, so too, the Temple courtyard is consecrated with an item that is eaten inside the courtyard, and which, if it emerges from there, is disqualified. This item is the remainder of a meal-offering, which can be eaten only by a priest and only in the Temple courtyard.

אי מה להלן חמץ אף כאן חמץ ותסברא מנחת חמץ מי איכא

The Gemara asks: If the consecration of the Temple courtyard is derived from the consecration of Jerusalem, let us say as follows: Just as there, with regard to the consecration of an addition made to Jerusalem, the loaves used in the ceremony are leavened, so too here, with regard to the consecration of an addition made to the Temple courtyard, the remainder of the meal-offering should be leavened. The Gemara expresses surprise at this suggestion: And how can you understand this? Is there a leavened meal-offering? A meal-offering is always unleavened.