וכי תימא דמחמיץ להו לשירים ומקדש בהו והכתיב (ויקרא ו, י) לא תאפה חמץ חלקם ואמר ריש לקיש אפילו חלקם לא תאפה חמץ
And if you would say that one leavens the remainder of the meal-offering, which the priests partake of, and he consecrates the Temple courtyard with it, that too is difficult, as isn’t it written: “It shall not be baked leavened, for their portion I have given it to them” (Leviticus 6:10)? And Reish Lakish says in explanation of this verse: Even the priests’ portion shall not be baked leavened, as it is prohibited to bake even a portion of the meal-offering leavened.
אלמה לא אפשר דמקדש בשתי הלחם בעצרת משום דלא אפשר
The Gemara asks: Still, why not consecrate the Temple courtyard with a leavened meal-offering? It is possible to consecrate it with the two loaves of bread that are brought as a communal offering on the festival of Shavuot, which is a meal-offering that is leavened. The Gemara answers: Because actually it is not possible to do so.
היכי ניעביד נבנייה מאתמול וניקדשיה מאתמול שתי הלחם בשחיטת כבשים הוא דקדשי
The Gemara explains why not. How could we do it? If we build the addition to the Temple courtyard on the eve of Shavuot and also consecrate it on the eve of the Festival, there is a difficulty, as the two loaves become consecrated as a meal-offering with the slaughter of the two lambs that are sacrificed together with them as peace-offerings, and this occurs on the Festival itself, not on the eve of the Festival.
נבנייה מאתמול וניקדשיה האידנא בעינן קידוש בשעת הבנין
If we build the addition to the Temple courtyard on the eve of the Shavuot festival, but consecrate it only now, on the Festival, this too is difficult, as we require consecration at the time of the completion of the building.
נבנייה ביום טוב ונקדשיה ביום טוב אין בנין מקדש דוחה יום טוב
If we build it on the Festival and consecrate it on the Festival, this also cannot be, as the building of the Temple does not override the Festival.
נשבקה לבתר הכי ונבנייה וניקדשיה איפסילא ליה בלינה
If we leave the two loaves until after the Festival and build the addition to the Temple courtyard on the day after the Festival, and consecrate it by eating the two loaves on that day, this is difficult as well, as the two loaves were already disqualified by virtue of being left overnight after the Festival.
נבנייה ממעלי יומא ונשייר ביה פורתא דעד דקדיש יומא לאלתר נגמריה וניקדשיה אין בנין בית המקדש בלילה דאמר אביי מנין שאין בנין בית המקדש בלילה שנאמר (במדבר ט, טו) וביום הקים את המשכן ביום מקימו בלילה אין מקימו הלכך לא אפשר:
If we build the addition to the Temple courtyard on the eve of the Festival and leave a little unbuilt until after the Festival, and as soon as the day is over and the Festival is finished, we immediately finish building the addition and consecrate it with the two loaves before they become disqualified, this too is impossible, as the building of the Temple cannot take place at night. This is as Abaye says: From where is it derived that the building of the Temple cannot take place at night? As it is stated: “And on the day that the Tabernacle was erected” (Numbers 9:15), from which it can be derived: One may erect it during the day, but one may not erect it at night. Therefore, it is impossible to consecrate the Temple courtyard with the two loaves; it must be done with the remainder of an unleavened meal-offering.
ובשיר: ת"ר שיר של תודה בכנורות ובנבלים ובצלצלים על כל פינה ופינה ועל כל אבן גדולה שבירושלים ואומר (תהלים ל, ב) ארוממך ה' כי דליתני וגו' ושיר של פגעים ויש אומרין שיר של נגעים
§ The mishna teaches concerning the consecration of an addition to the city of Jerusalem or the Temple courtyard: And with a song. The Sages taught in a baraita: They sang the song of thanksgiving, i.e., Psalms, chapter 100, which begins: “A psalm of thanksgiving,” accompanied by harps, lyres, and cymbals, at every corner and upon every large stone in Jerusalem. And they also recited Psalms, chapter 30, which begins: “I will extol You, O Lord, for You have lifted me up,” and the song of evil spirits, i.e., Psalms, chapter 91, which begins: “He that dwells in the secret place of the Most High.” And some say that this psalm is called the song of plagues.
מאן דאמר דנגעים דכתיב (תהלים צא, י) ונגע לא יקרב באהלך ומאן דאמר פגעים דכתיב (תהלים צא, ז) יפול מצדך אלף
The reason of the one who says that it is called the song of plagues is that it is written: “Nor shall any plague come near your dwelling” (Psalms 91:10). And the reason of the one who says that it is called the song of evil spirits is that it is written: “A thousand shall fall at your side and ten thousand at your right hand; but it shall not come near you” (Psalms 91:7).
ואומר (תהלים צא, א) יושב בסתר עליון בצל שדי יתלונן עד (תהלים צא, ט) כי אתה ה' מחסי עליון שמת מעונך וחוזר ואומר (תהלים ג, א) מזמור לדוד בברחו מפני אבשלום בנו ה' מה רבו צרי עד לה' הישועה על עמך ברכתך סלה:
And they recited the psalm from the verse: “He that dwells in the secret place of the Most High shall abide in the shadow of the Almighty” (Psalms 91:1), until they completed the verse: “Because You, O Lord, are my refuge; You have made the most High Your habitation” (Psalms 91:9). And they would then recite Psalms, chapter 3, which begins: “A psalm of David, when he fled from Absalom his son. Lord, how many are my enemies become,” until they reached the verse: “Salvation belongs to the Lord; Your blessing be upon Your people. Sela” (Psalms 3:9), which is the end of that psalm.
רבי יהושע בן לוי אמר להו להני קראי וגאני היכי עביד הכי והאמר ר' יהושע בן לוי אסור להתרפאות בדברי תורה להגן שאני
It is related that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi would recite these verses to protect him from evil spirits during the night and fall asleep while saying them. The Gemara asks: How could he do that? But doesn’t Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi himself say: One is prohibited from healing himself with words of Torah? The Gemara answers: To protect oneself is different, as he recited these verses only to protect himself from evil spirits, and not to heal himself.
ואלא כי אמר אסור דאיכא מכה אי דאיכא מכה אסור ותו לא והתנן הלוחש על המכה אין לו חלק לעולם הבא הא איתמר עלה א"ר יוחנן ברוקק שנו לפי שאין מזכירין שם שמים על הרקיקה:
The Gemara challenges: But rather, when Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that this is prohibited, he was referring to a situation where there is already a wound and one recites these verses in order to heal himself. But if there is already a wound and he recites these verses over it, is only this prohibited, and nothing more? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Sanhedrin 90a), that one who whispers an incantation over a wound has no share in the World-to-Come? The Gemara answers: Wasn’t it stated with regard to that mishna that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The mishna was taught with regard to one who spits into the wound and then whispers these verses. And the reason for the severity of this action is that the name of Heaven must not be mentioned in connection with spitting, as doing so is a show of contempt for God.
ב"ד מהלכין ושתי תודות אחריהן וכו': למימרא דבית דין קמי תודה אזלי והכתיב (נחמיה יב, לב) וילך אחריהם הושעיה וחצי שרי יהודה הכי קאמר בית דין מהלכין ושתי תודות מהלכות ובית דין אחריהם
§ The mishna teaches that as part of the consecration ceremony, the court would move forward, and two thanks-offerings would be brought after them, and all of the Jewish people would follow behind them. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that the members of the court walk in front of the thanks-offering? But isn’t it written in the verse from which this ceremony is derived: “And I placed two large thanks-offerings, and we went in procession to the right upon the wall, toward the dung gate; and after them went Hoshaiah, and half of the princes of Judah” (Nehemiah 12:31–32)? The Gemara answers: This is what the mishna is saying: The court moves forward. And how is this done? The two thanks-offerings move forward, and the court follows after them.
כיצד מהלכות רבי חייא ורבי שמעון ברבי חד אמר זו כנגד זו וחד אמר זו אחר זו מאן דאמר זו כנגד זו הפנימית הך דמקרבא לחומה מאן דאמר זו אחר זו הפנימית הך דמקרבא לב"ד
The Gemara clarifies this point: How exactly did the two thanks-offerings move forward? Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, disagree about this. One Sage says: One thanks-offering alongside the other. And one Sage says: One behind the other. According to the one who says that the two offerings moved one alongside the other, the thanks-offering that the mishna refers to as the inner one is that which is closest to the wall. According to the one who says that the two offerings moved one behind the other, the thanks-offering that is called the inner one is that which is closest to the members of the court advancing behind the thanks-offerings.
תנן הפנימית נאכלת והחיצונה נשרפת בשלמא למאן דאמר זו אחר זו אמטו להכי פנימית נאכלת משום דאתיא חיצונה קמה וקדשה לה אלא למאן דאמר זו כנגד זו תרוייהו בהדי הדדי קא מיקדשי
The Gemara analyzes these two opinions: We learned in the mishna: When they would reach the end of the place that they desired to consecrate, the inner thanks-offering would be eaten and the outer one would be burned. Granted, according to the one who says that the two thanks-offerings moved forward one behind the other, and that the inner one is the one that was in the rear, it is due to this that the inner one is eaten, because the outer one came before it and consecrated the additional area, so that it is now a sanctified place fit for the eating of the thanks-offering loaves. But according to the one who says that the two thanks-offerings moved forward one alongside the other, the two of them together consecrated the additional area. Why, then, is the inner one eaten and the outer one burned?
וליטעמיך למאן דאמר זו אחר זו חדא מי מיקדשא הא כל שלא נעשית בכל אלו תנן ואפי' למ"ד באחת מכל אלו הני תרוייהו חדא מצוה היא
The Gemara asks: And according to your reasoning, according to the one who says that the two offerings moved forward one behind the other, does one offering by itself consecrate the area? Didn’t we learn in the mishna that with regard to any addition that was not made with all these ceremonial procedures, the addition is not consecrated? And even according to the one who says (see 16a) that the correct reading of the mishna is: With regard to any addition that was not made with any one of all these ceremonial procedures, the addition is not consecrated, nevertheless, these two thanks-offerings are one mitzva, and one without the other would not consecrate the area.
אלא א"ר יוחנן
Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: