(The Mishnah taught that they may only add onto the city of Yerushalayim and the Temple courtyards with 71 judges) The Mishnah teaches (in Maseches Shavuos) - They may only add onto the city and the Temple courtyards with the following present - the king, the prophet, the Urim V'Tumim, the Sanhedrin of 71 judges, two Thanksgiving loaves and with song (of the Levi'im). The Beis Din walk (circuiting the extension), the two Thanksgiving loaves are behind them, all of Yisrael are behind them. The inner one is eaten and the outer one is burnt. If any part of this was not done, one who enters into that extension of the courtyard (in a state of tumah) is not liable. (NOTE: The Korban HaEidah changes the text, as above.)

(R. Yehuda): (We learn from the pesukim...) Originally (when King David bought the Temple Mount from Arvanah the Yevusi, he built an altar and brought sacrifices there, as the pasuk states Shmuel 2:24:18-19) "And David went up according to the word of Gad'' - this refers to requiring the king (David) and prophet (Gad);

(Divrei HaYamim 2:3:1) "And Shlomo began to build the House of Hash-m (the God of Israel) on Moriah mountain, where He had appeared'' - this refers to the Urim v'Tumim.

"...to David, his father'' - this refers to the Sanhedrin; as the pasuk states (Devarim 32:7), "Ask your father and he will tell you; your elders and they will say to you'' (which refers to Sanhedrin).

'Song' - from where is it known that it is needed to add? From the sanctification of Yerushalayim that was done in the days of Ezra (Nechemiah 12:32), "And Hosheyah and half the princes of Yehudah walked after them''.

'Thanksgiving loaves' - from where is it known that they are needed? The pasuk states (Nechemiah 12:31), "And I placed two large thanksgiving loaves with the processions to the right on the wall to the Dung Gate.''

(R. Shmuel Bar Yudan): Since the pasuk used the word '(Tahaluchos) - with processions' instead of '(Mehalchos) - those going', it implies that they were taken around indirectly.

Rav Huna bar Chiya in the name of Rav learned it (that the city and courtyards are extended with the king, the prophet etc.) from the Torah (Shemos 25:9), that Hash-m told Moshe, "according to all that I show you, the structure of the Mishkan and the structure of all of its vessels, and so shall you do.'' The phrase "and so shall you do'' applies these same requirements to all generations. The requirement for the king and prophet to be present is learned from Moshe's presence; the Urim V'Tumim is learned from Aharon; (Bamidbar 11:16), "Gather for me 70 men from the elders of Yisrael'' - this refers to Sanhedrin, as the pasuk states (Devarim 32:7), "Ask your father and he will tell you etc.'' (See above (b) 2.)

The Mishnah taught that "song'' is required; as the pasuk states (Nechemiah 12:32), "And Hoshayah and half of the princes of Yehudah walked after them''.

Thanksgiving loaves are required; as the pasuk states there (Nechemiah 12:31), "...and I placed two large thanksgiving offerings with processions to the right upon the wall of the Dung Gate''.

(R. Shmuel Bar Yudan): (Above) Since the pasuk used the word '(Tahaluchos) - with processions' instead of '(Mehalchos) - those going', it implies that they were taken around indirectly.

Question: How would they walk (carrying the two thanksgiving breads)?

Answer: R. Chiya Rabbah and R. Shimon bar Rebbi disagreed - one said that they were opposite it each other going in parallel and one said that they walked one after another.

They both expounded it from the same pasuk - (Nechemiah 12:38), "And the second thanksgiving offering that went opposite ('Lamul'), and I was after it''...

According to the one who said that they were opposite each other going in parallel, he explains it using the pasuk (when Balak described to Bilaam the way that the Nation of Israel were dwelling) (Bamidbar 22:5), "and they are positioned opposite me''.

And according to the one who said that one followed the other, he explains it using the pasuk, in reference to bird offerings (Vayikra 5:8), "He shall cut its head (by piercing with his nail) opposite the back of its head''.

According to the one who said that they were one after another, the first thanksgiving offering went first and sanctified the city and the second one that followed it therefore did not become invalidated from being outside.

And according to the one who said that one followed the other, he will explain that wherever they go, the two loaves both sanctify the city.

Question: According to the one who said that they were one after another, the following Mishnah in Maseches Shevuos (which also discusses adding to the city or the Courtyards) fits well - 'the inner one is eaten and the outer one is burned. Which is the inner one? The one closer to the Beis Din. (Since the first one sanctifies the area, the second one, which is taken through that sanctified place between the first one and the Beis Din, can now be eaten.) But according to the one who said that they were in parallel, since they both sanctified the city and before that the area was sanctified, both were therefore disqualified by being taken through an unsanctified place, so why could the second one be eaten?

Answer (R. Yasa citing R. Yochanan): It was eaten according to the instructions of the prophets (Chaggai, Zecharia and Malachi, even though it would seem to be prohibited, since they ruled that even though the two were consecutive, both would sanctify extension to the city).

Suggession: (R. Zeira): In Bavel they taught that the Mishnah in Shavuos (that seemed to say that all of the conditions are required to give it sanctity) is explained as follows - if none of these conditions were done (to sanctify the city), a tamei person would not be liable for entering that extension, but if any were done, he is liable, even though ideally all must be done. Otherwise, how could Ezra have sanctified the city when they came back from Bavel - even though it had originally been sanctified without the Urim V'Tumim because the Urim V'Tumim were not present in the Second Beis HaMikdash, but the sanctification was anyway valid.

Rejection: They found in a Baraisa that R. Yehuda said that they must all be done, even the Urim V'Tumim. (If so, how could Ezra have sanctified the city without them?)

Answer (R. Abahu): There is a dispute between R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish over this - one said that in Ezra's time, they first built the Beis HaMikdash and then they sanctified it; the other one said that they first sanctified and then they built.

According to the first opinion, they did not view the walls as if they were already standing, (as the sanctification made there by King David left when the first Beis HaMikdash was destroyed, so a new sanctification was needed at the time of Ezra. But according to the other opinion that they first sanctified meaning that there was first sanctity and then they built, the original sanctity of David never left. This opinion is followed by the one who said that all conditions, even the Urim V'Tumim must be met in order for sanctification to occur, which was done at the time of David and Shlomo but was not needed at the time of Ezra, as their sanctity never left.)

If they wished to extend the Temple Courtyards, which item would they sanctify to be eaten in the new extension? The two (leaven) loaves that are offered on Shavuos.

Question: But we do not sanctify on Yom Tov (and to save the loaves until after Yom Tov would disqualify them)?!

Answer: Rather, they would use the Showbreads (which are removed from the Shulchan on Shabbos and divided amongst the Kohanim, having been there for a week).

Question: Do we (complete the construction and then) sanctify on Shabbos?

Answer: Rather, it is done at night immediately after Shabbos.

Question: Do we sanctify at night?

Answer (R. Yosi bei R. Bun): Rather, they sanctify using the oven baked Mincha offering, that its remainders are eaten by the Kohanim in the Temple courtyard.

Question: This is understandable when referring to when they returned to the Land after the Babylonian exile, that they first made the offering and then they sanctified (with its remainders); but when they first came to the Land, with what did they sanctify (Yerushalayim)?

Answer (R. Yosi bei R. Bun): With the two loaves that they offered in Givon (which was the place of the Mishkan at that time. Since at that time, Kodshim Kalim (such as the loaves) could be eaten in any Jewish town, the loaves did not become disqualified when they were transported from Givon to Yerushalayim.)

Tosefta (Abba Shaul): There were two water pits on Har HaZeisim (Mount of Olives) - the lower one (near the foot of the mountain, near the Temple) and the upper one (further up the mountain).

The lower one had the sanctity of Yerushalayim as it was fully sanctified (and attached to the city with a surrounding wall in the days of the first Beis HaMikdash); the upper one did not have sanctity, as it was only surrounded and sanctified when Ezra came from Bavel, which was a time when there was no king and no Urim V'Tumin.

Therefore, at the lower one, the ignorant people would eat there Kodshim Kalim (sacrifices of lighter sanctity) but not Maaser Sheni (as they were particular to eat it in Yerushalayim proper, in order to receive the blessing expounded by Chazal, that whoever is careful in separating Maaser will become wealthy. But as for the sacrifices, they did not trouble themselves to eat them in Yerushalayim proper and sufficed with eating them in the extended area which was around the lower pit.)

And the learned people who understood that this area was given the full sanctity of Yerushalayim, would eat there both Kodshim Kalim and Maaser Sheni.

At the upper one, the ignorant people would eat Kodshim Kalim but not Maaser Sheni; the learned people, who knew that the area was not sanctified, would not eat Kodshim Kalim or Maaser Sheni.

Question: Since they did not sanctify the upper area, why did they physically surround it with a wall? (NOTE: This entry follows the Korban HaEidah's explanation.)

Answer: Otherwise the city would have been easy to conquer.

Question: The Mishnah (above daf 15 -3(d)) taught - They may only make a Sanhedrin for the individual tribes with a Beis Din of 71 judges. What is the source that each tribe should judge its own members?

Answer: The pasuk states (Devarim 16:18), "for your tribes, and they shall judge the people''.

The Mishnah (daf 15 - 3(f)) taught - They may also not rule that three cities are wayward cities, but they may rule about one or two.

R. Yochanan: There are three opinions about (why the Mishnah needed to say 'they may rule about one or two' as it could have merely said two and one would have been obvious)

One said - ideally, they may only rule that one city is a wayward city, but if they ruled on two, it is valid.

Another said - if the two cities are close to each other, they may not rule on both; if they are distant from each other, they may rule on both. (NOTE: The Korban HaEidah suggests this as the correct text.)

Another said - they may not rule on cities that are distant from each other at all (but they may rule on two cities that are close to each other) as if they are distant the enemies might hear about it and come and invade the Land of Israel.

And some explain that it is when two wayward cities are near each other that the enemies will notice the 'bald spot' and come and invade the Land of Israel..